Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: In the interests of making greater progress, I have decided to call fewer supplementary questions. We have been going very much slower of late.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Zambia

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Zambia.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I have at present no plans to do SO.

Mr. Renton: Does the Foreign Secretary consider that the Zambian copper fields are as vulnerable to attack by Angolan rebels as are those in nearby Zaire? Does not that possibility underline the essential vulnerability of raw material supplies from Southern Africa to Western Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in the Anglo-American talks, since the United States is far less dependent on external sources of raw materials than we are?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Southern Africa is a very important source of many crucial raw materials. He is also right to point out the vulnerability of the copperbelt in Zambia, particularly as a result of what has happened in Zaire. It is common knowledge that forces crossed through Zambian territory into Zaire. The Zambian Government had no knowl-

edge of this and they have deplored it, but in that remote part of the country they were unable to stop it. There is a danger of law and order breaking down in Zaire, Zambia and that part of Angola, and that is why it is important that the politcal heads of those countries should come together.

Mr. Thorne: What action has the Foreign Secretary taken over the massacre on 4th May by South African troops of 600 Namibians, many of whom were teenagers who were subsequently buried in mass graves in Cassinga?

Dr. Owen: There is no doubt that that raid has made it very much harder to seek agreement for a transition to independence for Namibia, but we have pursued our objective in the five-Power initiative. There is another Question about Namibia on the Order Paper.

Mr. Luce: Since the future prosperity of Zambia depends upon a peaceful solution in Rhodesia, may I widen the question a little? While it is essential that the Patriotic Front should renounce the use of force and participate peacefully in the affairs of Rhodesia, and it is essential that rapid progress should be made by the internal leaders towards the implementation of the principle of majority rule by, for example, dropping race discrimination laws, does not the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the passive approach that has been adopted by the Britsih Government towards the Rhodesia problem in the last few months has, however unintentionally, helped to jeopardise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will link his question to Zambia, I shall be very grateful.

Mr. Luce: I believe that the future prosperity of Zambia depends upon a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia. Will the Secretary of State give active encouragement to a peaceful solution in Rhodesia by, for example, giving practical assistance in the preparations for the elections in Rhodesia?

Dr. Owen: There are some critics of our policy among the Opposition, but I do not think that their main criticism is that we are passive. The question of Zambia is the central issue here. That is a crucial country in regard to achieving


peace in Rhodesia, and it is important that we should listen to the views of people such as President Kaunda, who, over the years, has shown a great willingness to take personal risks to try to achieve a negotiated settlement and, I believe, still intends to do so. Zambia has a role to play and it is important that we should recognise that.

Cyprus (Turkish Forces)

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in regard to the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The withdrawal of a further 800 Turkish troops from Cyprus was announced in mid-April. However, my right hon. Friend does not think it possible to divorce this question from the Cyprus problem as a whole, over which the Government support efforts by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to reconvene intercommunal talks.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, has said that the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus is not possible in the absence of progress being made in the renewal of arms deliveries by the United States to Turkey and of some progress being made among the international finance institutions towards additional economic assistance for Turkey? Therefore, will he ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to take an initiative, in view of President Kyprianou's statement that he is now in favour of the demilitarisation of Cyprus? Co-ordination and timing are vital, and my right hon. Friend could assist.

Mr. Judd: For the record, it should be said that at one time the Turks had about 40,000 troops in Cyprus. Withdrawals totalling about 15,000 have been announced at various times. There were 800 withdrawals when the Turkish proposals for Cyprus were made in mid-April. I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government's view is that both sides to the dispute must show flexibility. That has been urged by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on both Mr. Ecevit

and President Kyprianou during their recent visits to London.

Mr. Hurd: Are we not drifting again into quite serious danger? The Turks are indignant about the arms embargo and the Greek Cypriots are refusing to accept the Turkish proposals even as a basis for negotiation. Will the hon. Gentleman be more clear about what Her Majesty's Government are doing to get talks going either through the EEC or direct as a guarantor?

Mr. Judd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that it is not for us to tell the United States Congress how to behave over the arms embargo. That is an American matter. We are deeply concerned about not only Cyprus but strategic and defence issues in the Mediterranean. We are also concerned about other disputes and their implications for Turkey and Greece. For all these reasons we want to speed peaceful settlements in the area. We are urging flexibility and imagination on all parties to the dispute. We believe that the way forward is to support the Secretary-General in the initiative that he has taken and to bring home to the parties in Cyprus that there can be no lasting solution without their commitment.

Namibia

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with Western Foreign Ministers about the position of Namibia.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the resumed negotiations for ending South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia.

Dr. Owen: The meeting of the Five's Foreign Ministers reviewed recent developments, particularly the meeting of the front-line States and SWAPO in Luanda. We are determined to press ahead with discussions to secure early agreement on our proposal, and are in touch with the parties concerned.

Mr. Molloy: The propositions and examinations in which my right hon. Friend has been indulging could lead to a settlement in Namibia, but is he aware that at the end of the year Namibia goes


to the polls in preparation for independence and that that is now being threatened by South African attacks on SWAPO camps that could lead to assistance for SWAPO by Soviet forces? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that could damage or even ruin the progressive measures in which he has been involved?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend that the raid on Cassinga has not helped progress towards a settlement. However, it still must be the view of the five Governments that they should try to bring about sufficient support to be able to go to the Security Council and, within the framework of the United Nations, bring Namibia to independence before the end of the year.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Security Council resolution passed unanimously on 13th January 1976 and supported by the United Kingdom require that Walvis Bay should be an integral part of Namibia and that there can be no trading on that score to pacify the South Africans?

Dr. Owen: Our proposals have been published, and everybody knows what we have suggested. There are differing views on the issue of Walvis Bay. It is interesting that all the parties that would compete in an election in Namibia believe that Walvis Bay should be part of Namibia. That is something on which they are unanimous. It is the view of the five Governments that there should be urgent negotiations between the South African Government and the newly independent Government to achieve a solution that satisfies the people of Namibia as a whole.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The right hon. Gentleman may know that I am no supporter of South Africa in its attitude towards Namibia, but at the same time it must be recorded as a fact—I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with me—that the South Africans have conceded a great deal on Namibia since their original Turnhalle position. Does he agree that the pressure must now be put on SWAPO? How does he propose, together with his four allies, to exercise that pressure?

Dr. Owen: We have made progress. It is important to record in the House that the South African Government have accepted the proposals that have been put forward. We have had a setback since the Cassinga raid. The five frontline Presidents have exerted considerable powers of persuasion over SWAPO in Luanda. Many other African countries believe that the Five's initiative offers a basis for bringing Namibia to independence. It is not so much a matter of bringing pressure on one side or the other. There are a few relatively minor issues still needing clarification. We are trying to achieve clarification in a way that will have the agreement of all parties, so that we can get a resolution through the Security Council.

Mr. Ford: Will my right hon. Friend take note that all the ethnic and political groups inside Namibia would be gravely concerned if the date of independence were postponed by any action of the Western Powers? Will he now put a term upon the SWAPO reply to the Western proposals—some time around mid-July—and encourage people such as Andreas Shipanga, who was recently released from Tanzania after two years' imprisonment without trial and has now formed the SWAPO Democrats and wishes to proceed to a democratic peaceful transition in Namibia?

Dr. Owen: It is extremely important that that date should be maintained. That is why I believe that the Security Council resolution must come in July and no later. The decision of the Tanzanian Government to release some of the SWAPO detainees is important. It is important that they are all released in the various countries in which they are held—South Africa and other countries. It is not for me to choose between the political parties. The hope of the Five is that there should be a free and fair election and that the people of Namibia should decide.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on the furtherance of the date of independence is to be greatly welcomed? Is he further aware that another factor that is worrying all parties in Namibia is whether the elections will be able to take place freely and honestly? Is he able to give any assurance that the five Powers will


be able to ensure that that happens and that there will be no intervention from outside forces, from whichever side?

Dr. Owen: It is crucial that the United Nations' military presence should be sufficiently strong to ensure that there is no infiltration from anybody to cause a disruption of the election process, and that the arrangements for security inside the country during that time are satisfactory. As is so often the case, as in Rhodesia, one of the major issues is to try to get a satisfactory arrangement for internal security.

Gibraltar

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current position of the negotiations with Spain in relation to Gibraltar.

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend had a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister in New York on 2nd June. He hopes that a start can soon be made with the proposed working groups which they agreed to set up at his meeting with Senor Oreja in Paris, at which Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Xiberras were present.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that the matter was raised with Senor Calvo Sotelo during the visit to the United Kingdom on a date later than his answer—namely 20th-21st June? Was it part of the conversations that took place on that occasion? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would regard it as unthinkable that a country could be a member of the EEC and behave towards a neighbour as Spain is now behaving towards Gibraltar?

Mr. Judd: I can confirm that the matter was discussed during the meetings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There was reference to it in only general terms as it was not the central purpose of the visit. I think that he will agree, if he does not recall this from his reading of Hansard, that he has quoted a word that I have used myself in the context of the future between Gibraltar and Spain after Spain's accession to the Community.

Mr. John Evans: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Spanish Government

that we shall continue to support them in what may prove difficult negotiations regarding their application to join the Common Market? However, will he make it clear that our position would be considerably strengthened if they would regularise the position with Gibraltar and open the border?

Mr. Judd: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend. It would be good news if they would adjust their position to one that would be more acceptable in terms of their relationship with Gibraltar. As for our general commitment to Spanish accession to the Community, we take second place to nobody in our desire to see that speeded forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister agree that the Government have always expressed the view that they will not link membership of the EEC and the opening of negotiations with the frontier question? Apart from that statement, the Government have never given the reasons why they will not link them. Will the Minister now do so?

Mr. Judd: With respect, I must disagree with the hon. Member. I recall that not long ago he put the same question to the Prime Minister, who made it clear that in his view the relationships between Spain and Gibraltar and the restrictions were totally unacceptable. He said that these difficulties should be removed as rapidly as possible and should certainly not wait on Spanish accession to the Community.

Africa (Soviet Activities)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' Government about Soviet activities in Africa.

Dr. Owen: I discussed African problems, among other international issues, with Mr. Gromyko in New York on 1st June.

Mr. Blaker: What penalty will the Soviet Union suffer if it continues its aggressive activities in Africa?

Dr. Owen: The penalty will be the growing disillusionment of many of the African countries about the Soviet Union's intentions there. This is already


becoming evident as it becomes more obvious that its contribution is mainly one of supplying arms, that its contribution in terms of aid and development and technical assistance is negligible and derisory compared with the contribution of the Western world, and as more and more African countries see that their position of non-alignment will be challenged if the Soviet Union becomes too involved in their internal affairs.

Mr. Alexanzler W. Lyon: Does not the scale of the massacre of black civilians in Cassinga by the South African forces contrast strongly with the absence of any protest from the Opposition Benches? Is not the hypocrisy of that side of the House indicated by suggestions that people who are looking for justice and have to turn to arms, and to ask the Russians for those arms, are committing some kind of offence, when South Africa and Rhodesia continue with their restrictive policies from white minority regimes?

Dr. Owen: When it has been necessary to condemn violence I have condemned it from whatever source it has come. I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we shall try to follow a nonselective policy. The need for Africa is to avert the current increase in violence in many African countries and the threat of chaos which comes in the wake of violence and the breakdown of good administration and law and order.

Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's statement in New York that we should not allow differences with the Soviet Union over Africa to interfere with the process of detente will be regarded as a green light by those in Moscow to go ahead with their adventurism in Africa and in South Arabia? Is he further aware that there is a widespread impression that instead of the Prime Minister stiffening President Carter's backbone he has been hanging on to his coat tails? Does he agree that while turning the other cheek might be the highest manifestation of individual virtue, when it is practised by Ministers who are the trustees of nations it is a sign of either irresponsibility or impotence?

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to read the Prime Minister's speech. If the right hon.

Gentleman were able to show the same degree of understanding of the complexity of the African issue and the complexity of detente and East-West affairs as the Prime Minister shows, he would not be sitting on the Opposition Back Benches.

Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure Soviet interference in Africa—which appears to be Conservative Party policy—is to force the liberation movements into Soviet dependence for political support and hard supplies?

Dr. Owen: I agree that it is important that African countries which are intensely nationalistic should be encouraged to remain genuinely non-aligned. One of the ways of doing that is not always to leap immediately to cut off aid and diplomatic contacts, but to try to persuade them of the virtues of our democratic Western system. We are doing that successfully in Africa. It is complete nonsense to lose sight of the fact that Western influence in Africa is probably stronger than it has been over the last five years because of our readiness to support genuine liberation movements.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the Foreign Secretary consider this to be the right moment to test the intentions of the Soviet Union, to see whether it will back a ceasefire across all the frontiers of Rhodesia as a prelude to useful negotiations with all parties?

Dr. Owen: I think that the Soviet Union would say that it has no involvement, but we know that it does supply arms to liberation movements and that that has given the Soviet Union a great deal of influence. Since we cannot supply arms, it is important that we should try to offset that influence by humanitarian assistance and other measures. A ceasefire in Africa across all boundaries would be in total keeping with the charter of the Organisation of African Unity, which involves a respect for the existing map of Africa. That is one of the things that we have fought for in the Horn of Africa and in Zaire and that we are trying to maintain in Namibia and Rhodesia.

Mr. Luce: Does the Secretary of State feel that detente is indivisible and that


Soviet policies in Africa should be seen within the wider context of Western relations with the Soviet Union? Has not the time come not only for the British Government but for the Western world to show a more robust approach—

Mr. Litterick: Like what?

Mr. Luce: —by, for example, saying clearly to the Soviet Union that if it persists with its destructive policies in Africa we cannot go on providing it with privileged credit facilities or grain?

Dr. Owen: I agree that detente is indivisible. I have said so on many occasions. I do not believe that one can exclude from East-West relations the type of adventurism that we have seen in Africa. I have never denied that. The British Government have maintained—and have won great support throughout the world for their view—that we should be wary of thinking that African problems are exclusively an East-West issue. They are not. They are primarily African in context.
I turn to the question of what action one should take. I think that a measured response against actions which are damaging to detente is necessary. One of the measured and serious responses of the Western world was to decide, within the NATO Alliance, to increase defence expenditure—much as we did not wish to do so—because we were facing steady and persistent increases in Warsaw Pact forces.

Disarmament

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs what action he will take to follow up the conclusion of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, now that the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament has finished, and in view of the Prime Minister's speech to the Session, what steps the Government are taking to pursue the Prime Minister's proposals for practical action.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): We shall pursue with vig-

our the negotiations in which we are currently involved and try to advance progress in disarmament through the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in his speech to the General Assembly on 2nd June.

Mr. Allaun: Would it not be a practical sequel if we accepted the new Warsaw Pact proposals for a force reduction in central Europe, in which they offer for the first time greater reductions than NATO? Can the Minister indicate roughly the British reaction to that and, if possible, the American reaction, as stated by spokesmen so far?

Mr. Luard: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said in the House, we regard these new proposals as a significant advance. For the first time they accept at least the principle of parity as the outcome of the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations. In part the proposals result from those that we made to the Soviet Union. We therefore welcome this response. The proposals will have to be studied carefully, and no doubt we shall be pursuing the negotiations further.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the initiative taken by the Canadian Government in renouncing the use of nuclear weapons is valuable? Would it not be a good idea for the British Government to follow that initiative and do the same thing, particularly in view of the statements by the United States and Russia that they will guarantee countries such as India and Brazil against attack by nuclear weapons if they do not develop them?

Mr. Luard: As my hon. Friend knows, we belong to an alliance. Matters such as this are for the alliance as a whole. Many of us would doubt whether the security of this country would be advanced if we made unmistakably clear in advance that we would never use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack, given that there is conventional weapon superiority on the Warsaw Pact side in Europe at present.

Mr. Churchill: Does the Minister agree that it is a matter of the gravest concern that while we have been engaging with the Soviets in the strategic arms limitation talks and the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations in good faith,


at least in the case of the conventional build-up, we have seen a situation arise in recent years which has led to the position that today, even if a whole Soviet tank army of three tank divisions were to be removed from the group of Soviet forces in Germany, there would still be several hundred more Soviet tanks in East Germany than there were at the start of the MBFR talks at the beginning of the decade?

Mr. Luard: I have just expressed concern about the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe. The size of Soviet tank armies in the central Europe area has been a crucial issue in the MBFR negotiations, and we have made proposals designed to reduce that tank strength.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant contribution could be made to disarmament by denying arms and armaments to Governments who are likely to use them against other nations or against their own people? Bearing that in mind, will he make a statement about the Government's attitude towards the provision, to the Chilean fascist junta, of the aero-engines now in Britain?

Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend knows that we consider every individual arms deal very carefully in the light of precisely the kind of consideration that he has raised—whether they are likely to be used against neighbouring States, and whether they might be used against the population of the country concerned. I cannot comment at present about the aero-engines for Chile.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Referring to the Minister's first answer to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), may I ask whether he agrees that it is all very well for the Russians to offer to reduce their forces to a greater extent than we reduce ours but that they can get their forces back quickly across the land, whereas our reinforcements and those of America have to come by sea and air?

Mr. Luard: That is one of the considerations that the NATO Alliance has in mind in undertaking these negotiations. As for the central European area, which is under discussion in the MBFR negotiations, we have from the beginning been aiming at a position of parity between the forces on both sides. The advance that has now been made, is that

the Soviet Union has accepted that in principle. The difficulty is that there is still no agreement about the present balance of forces in that area.

West Germany-Berlin (Civil Flights)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the USSR authorities about increasing the height limit for civil aircraft flying between West Germany and Berlin.

Mr. Judd: None, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister aware that the present height limit was set in 1945 by the four Powers, when piston-engined aircraft were operating, and it was the optimum height for those aircraft? Is the Minister aware that it is a totally uneconomic height for jet aircraft? Is he further aware that British Airways are of the view that if they were allowed to operate at heights up to 20,000 ft. they could considerably improve passenger comfort? Will he press these points on the Soviet authorities?

Mr. Judd: Such an approach would obviously have to be co-ordinated with all our allies and would have to take into account many aspects of the air services agreements. The situation basically remains as described in the answer given to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), that:
quadripartite agreements establishing the air corridors did not impose any height limits. The Soviet authorities have, however, sought to assert that there is a 10,000 ft. ceiling. The Three Powers have never accepted that this is so, but in the interests of air safety"—
which must obviously be paramount—
Allied aircraft have generally flown below this height."—[Official Report, 31st July 1972; Vol. 842; c. 21.]

Dr. Yuri Orlov

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement in the House on his views of the action of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in prosecuting Dr. Yuri Orlov for his protest at Soviet violations of the human rights treaty signed at Helsinki.

Mr. Luard: No, Sir. The Government's views have been made entirely clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to Questions on 18th May, by my right hon. Friend in the foreign affairs debate on 7th June, and by myself in a reply to the hon. Member on 8th June.

Mr. Winterton: Does the Under-Secretary agree that the prosecution of Dr. Yuri Orlov and other dissidents for their attempts to monitor the Helsinki agreement in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union's total lack of implementation of this agreement are prime examples of the charade of detente being indulged in by the Soviet Union? Does he further agree that the attitude of the Government and the Foreign Secretary towards this question gives credibility and respectability to the Soviet Union's continued persecution of its own citizens?

Mr. Luard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the arrest and trial took place of somebody whose only fault was that he was trying to ensure that the Helsinki agreement, to which the Soviet Union is a party, was effectively observed is a major cause of concern and one of the reasons why the trial has caused such an outcry all over the world. As I said in my original answer, we have already made clear our deep concern, and the House as a whole has made clear its concern.
I agree that such actions cannot fail to have an effect on detente between East and West, but I do not accept the criticisms of the Prime Minister or of my right hon. Friend, because most of us believe that, despite the problems, we must continue to make some attempt to maintain detente.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the Foreign Secretary press the Soviet Government to open Soviet trials to foreign observers, particularly the forthcoming trials of Shcharansky and Ginsburg?

Mr. Luard: As my hon. and learned Friend probably knows, we had hoped that observers would be allowed into the trial of Dr. Orlov, but that was prevented. It seemed strange, if the trial were as fair as the Soviet authorities had suggested, that they should want to conceal the proceedings from the public. We may well

make a similar approach for observers to be allowed at the trials of Shcharansky and Ginsburg.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards progress to peace in the Middle East.

Dr. Owen: The Government continue to support efforts to restore direct peace talks between Egypt and Israel. This is on the understanding that these would be aimed at wider negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement based on the principles of Security Council resolution 242 as amplified in the European Council declaration of 29th June 1977.

Mr. Walters: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the fact that the Israeli Government have rejected out of hand the most recent proposal put forward by the Egyptian Government, with American encouragement? Does he not feel that the time has come for the European Community to break its rather long silence on the subject? Will he put forward a proposal of international control of the West Bank and Gaza after Israeli withdrawal?

Dr. Owen: It was agreed in the Council of Foreign Ministers yesterday that this issue would be discussed as a political co-operation item at the Bremen Summit. There was no disposition to make another statement, but certainly we wanted to try to see where we were going, and in particular to judge the climate and see whether the United States' present attempts to bring Israel and Egypt into direct talks would be successful.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a fine balance between the Arab expectations in regard to territory and the needs of Israel for security? May we be assured that there will be, from Her Majesty's Government, a continuing even-handed policy?

Dr. Owen: Yes. I believe that we have to balance those two factors. Sometimes, when resolutions have been put down which have ignored the legitimate security interest of Israel, the United


Kingdom has thought it right to insist that that should be included. I think that the balance also has to reflect a degree of commitment to achieving a negotiated settlement. Further and more positive statements will have to be made. In relation to this—referring to a question of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) that I did not answer—I think that the Israeli Cabinet will have to be more positive in any direct talks that may come about. It may argue that it cannot move in isolation, from being in negotiation, but the world expects movement in any discussions.

Mr. Luce: Since there is a serious impasse at the present time, will the Secretary of State make clear, in answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), whether he feels that there is a role for the Community to play in helping to facilitate further discussions between the Arabs and the Israelis, clearly based on the principle of Security Council resolution 242?

Dr. Owen: Yes, I think that there is a continuing role for the European Community. It is involved with all the States through the Maghreb agreements. We have traditional links—some of them very close and long-established—with various countries, and I believe that the European Community is right to keep this issue constantly in front of it. There are times when we can be supportive of the United States, and there are times when we can take an independent stance.

Malaysia

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Malaysia.

Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. McCrindle: What is the latest position in the negotiations with Malaysia with regard to overflying rights for Concorde en route to Singapore? Can the Minister confirm that these are not being held up by an attempt on the part of Malaysia to trade off these overflying rights against matters that have nothing to do with aviation?

Mr. Luard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The position of Her Majesty's

Government is that there is no connection between the discussions that have been taking place about Concorde and the other talks about air services arrangements, which are taking place in a different context. I entirely agree that there is no reason why these two things should be related.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the difficulty about Concorde is that the Malaysian Government are seeking to object to supersonic overflights close to their territory. It is not proposed, and never has been, that Concorde should fly over Malaysia. We are talking about territorial waters off the Malaysian coast. Concorde will fly no closer to Malaysia than it already does to many other countries.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Foreign Secretary take up with the Malaysian Government the position of the 110.000 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who live in Malaysia and the possibility of giving them Malaysian citizenship? That would certainly be of considerable importance in adjusting our own citizenship.

Mr. Luard: I agree with my hon. Friend that that action would certainly help us in relation to our own nationality and citizenship laws. We have no immediate plans to discuss the matter with the Malaysian Government.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Political Co-operation

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the development of political co-operation in the Council of Ministers and amongst the permanent representatives; and what initiatives he is planning.

Dr. Owen: I am very satisfied with the development of political co-operation. We are finding increasing areas of agreement amongst the countries of the Nine on issues as diverse as Africa, Chile and the Belgrade conference.

Mr. Hunt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a more cohesive and united EEC stance, in particular on Africa in the light of recent events in Zaire and


Rhodesia? Is he planning any political initiatives to speed up this process?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gives credit where it is due. Three or four years ago there were major differences of opinion in the Community on African questions, particularly in relation to South Africa. Also, there was a fairly major divide, and very little cross-fertilisation of ideas and exchange of information with regard to Francophone Africa and Anglophone Africa. I believe that the Community's involvement in Africa through Lomé has been a significant new development, and there is now far greater understanding than hitherto.

Sir G. de Freitas: While recognising the point which the Foreign Secretary has made about Francophone and Anglophone Africa, may I ask whether the Government are aware that in the answers given to questions each month in the European Parliament by the President in Office of the Council of Ministers there is very little sign of increasing political co-operation? Surely, the success which we have achieved in this particular respect can be extended to other areas.

Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friend points to a genuine problem which the President faces on this issue. I remember it well when I held the Presidency myself. It is extra-Treaty political co-operation, and there is great sensitivity about speaking in front of the Assembly on the Community's position in relation to some of these questions. We find it easier to reach agreement informally as a Council but not so easy to translate that into specific and detailed answers on the floor of the Assembly. This was discussed at the last political co-operation meeting, and when the Presidency comes to Germany the new President—Herr Genscher—has said that he hopes to be more forthcoming in parliamentary answers.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether prior to the Franco-Belgian intervention in Zaire either France or Belgium used the mechanism of political co-operation either to ask the Community countries about the appropriateness of the action or to give their Community partners some warning of the action?

Dr. Owen: No, it was not done in the framework of political co-operation. Because time was so short, there was an ad hoc arrangement involving France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Belgium. There was then an interchange of ideas which went wider as events developed, but initially it was those four who co-operated in the initial response. Zaire had been discussed in the framework of political co-operation in the spring of 1977, when the first incident in Shaba occurred.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend stand by the pledge, so often given, that on matters of basic national interest each member State has a right of veto in the Council of Ministers?

Dr. Owen: Yes, and that is implicit in political co-operation. One has to reach unanimous agreement among the Nine.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Foreign Secretary put some extra effort into this matter? Even if he is satisfied, I am sure that no one else is. Does he not agree that the pooling of information and the occasional issuing of declarations of principle are not enough? Is it not time that we had the will and the machinery to use coherently and consistently the economic and political power of Europe in the defence of Western interests?

Dr. Owen: Most of the criticism is that the United Kingdom spends too much time on political co-operation and not enough on true Community affairs. I do not think that there is any doubt that we give a very high priority to it. For instance, there is the involvement over the Belgrade conference and the co-ordination of positions there. It also applies to many other areas. For example, at the United Nations Special Session, for the first time ever the Community produced a common position—I admit, not a very exciting one—on disarmament. Hitherto, this has always been thought too sensitive a subject for the European Community to take a position on. I think that this is an interesting and new development.

European Economic Commission

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the European Economic Commission.

Dr. Owen: Yesterday, at the Council meeting in Luxembourg, I met many of the Commissioners. The Council discussed preparations for the European Council at Bremen, approved a negotiating mandate for the opening of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention and also adopted a set of conclusions to serve as guidelines to the Community negotiators in the next stage of the multilateral trade negotiations. I am circulating a fuller account in the Official Report.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Should he not pay a visit to the Commission proper so that among the assembled members of the Commission and their senior officials he can say how distressed he was that the Errol Flynn of British politics—namely, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—unwittingly and quite accidentally misled public opinion in this country by misreading the original Commission proposals on the Milk Marketing Board and assuming that the Commission actually wanted to abolish it? Should not the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity to say how sorry he was that the Minister misunderstood what the Commission was getting at?

Dr. Owen: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the other day I was in Wales and the concern felt by Welsh farmers about the Milk Marketing Board was total and genuine. The issue was that the Commission was only prepared to postpone the review for a period of years and was prepared to give an extended life, but not a permanent life, to the Milk Marketing Board. The achievement of my right hon. Friend was to achieve a permanence for the Milk Marketing Board. That is a very formidable achievement, and people in milk production, whose monthly cheque from the Milk Marketing Board is utterly crucial to them, strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's achievement.

Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commission, particularly the President, will he draw its attention to the editorial in the Daily Express the other day which was very much in line with the views of the Labour Party conference that either fundamental changes should be made in the CAP and the interests of Britain should actually be

taken into consideration or we get out of the Common Market?

Dr. Owen: As hon. Members will know, I have some difficulty in endorsing editorial comment in the Daily Express. But I note the fact that there is still a considerable body of opinion in this country which does not feel that we have benefited from our membership of the Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] That is a fact which any Government must take into account, and take seriously. I believe that is why it is crucially important that a country which is the second largest contributor to the EEC budget, although only sixth in the level of GNP, should have a rearrangement of the financial contribution.

Following is the information:
Prior to the Council, the seventh ministerial session of the Greek accession negotiations was held. Ministers noted that progress had been made in the capital movements, coal and steel and Euratom chapters; and the Commission reported that it planned to propose draft mandates for the major outstanding chapters before the summer break.
In the context of discussion of the common economic strategy, the Council noted that progress had been achieved in both national and Community energy policies. The draft resolution on energy policy objectives for 1985 was remitted to officials for further consideration.
The main outstanding points were settled in the regulation setting up the new Regional Development Fund. The United Kingdom stands to benefit from the new, more flexible rules governing the projects that can be financed by the fund.
On relations with Japan, the Council reaffirmed the importance it attached to the Japanese Government meeting their targets for increased growth and a reduced external surplus, and instructed the Commission to continue its consultations with the Japanese Government to this end. A report will be made to the European Council in July in this sense.
The Council agreed that the pragmatic development of co-operation with EFTA countries should be pursued. We welcome this.
On steel, the Council agreed that more work was needed before conclusions could be reached on the Commission's paper on revised general objectives for steel or on the Commission's draft decision regulating State aids. The Council will discuss the draft decision again in July.
The Council also discussed the Commission's proposed decision on sanctions against those infringing the Community's minimum price regime for steel products. There was general agreement on the substance of the decision, which the Council hoped could soon be adopted.
The Council had an exchange of views on the general approach proposed by the Commission in its communication to the Council


on the reorganisation of the European shipbuilding industry. The Council will hold a further discussion in July.
A number of proposals for Community action in respect of marine pollution were agreed.
Agreement was reached on the fourth directive on company law which provides for the uniform preparation, presentation and publication of company accounts.
The Council agreed on a communication to the Assembly on preparations for direct elections, confirming the Council's view on the proposed dates now that the relevant Act has been ratified by all member States.
Directives were approved concerning the mutual recognition of formal qualifications in dentistry, to facilitate the exercise of the right of establishment and dentists' freedom to provide services within the Community.
The United Kingdom delegation stressed the political and economic arguments which require an early reopening of Community markets to beef exports from Botswana.
In a discussion of the levels of textile imports from Mediterranean suppliers, it was agreed that these matters should be pursued urgently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade emphasised the importance we attach to adhering to the conclusions of the 20th December Council.

Decision-taking Processes

Mr. Michael Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements he intends to press for in the decision-taking processes of the European Community, particularly for coping with the problems of reaching agreement in an enlarged Community.

Dr. Owen: I shall continue to press in particular for improvements in the control and organisation of Council business, so that issues can be resolved after discussion and consultation and with full democratic control.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend favour the increased use of majority voting in the Council of Ministers?

Dr. Owen: I doubt whether it is necessary. What we are seeing is a form of informal majority voting, which has been building up steadily and persistently over the years, when a country which finds itself in a minority on an issue not of fundamental importance is prepared to concede or compromise. Were we to formalise the voting system, I believe that we would find it much harder to achieve the compromise which is necessary for the Community to work effi-

ciently and effectively. It is the British position that there is already in existence an effective majority voting system, that it is not necessary to formalise it and that it is necessary to maintain the spirit of the Luxembourg compromise.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that there should be the closest cooperation between the EEC and NATO?

Dr. Owen: The two organisations have different functions, and one countryIreland—is not a member of NATO. It is very important to recognise that Spain, for example, which is applying to join the EEC, has not yet resolved the controversial issue of membership of NATO. Also, Greece has a different relationship with NATO—it is not a full member. A distinction is also made in France. Therefore, I believe that we would be unwise to adopt a position where membership of the EEC was in any way formally linked with membership of NATO. We should see them as two distinct organisations which have, on many occasions, common interests.

Mr. Roper: Can there be any improved co-ordination between the various specialised Councils of Ministers and the Council of Foreign Ministers?

Dr. Owen: Yes, I think that there can be. There has been a movement away from believing that the Foreign Affairs Council is the only Council to make decisions inside the European Community. I believe that that is inevitable and right as the complexity of business increases. It is necessary to have specialised bodies because there are some areas where policy cannot be parcelled conveniently. An example of this is competition policy, which has very grave consequences for employment. In such cases there should he better co-ordination.

Enlargement

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made towards the enlargement of the Community; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Owen: At a ministerial negotiating session with Greece on 26th June further useful progress was made. The Council


considered the Commission's opinion on the Portuguese application on 6th June, when it decided to open negotiations as soon as practically possible after the summer break. The opinion on Spain will, I hope, be produced before the end of this year.

Mr. Arnold: Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to achieve an enlargement that will not put at risk any of the Community's fundamental objectives it will be necessary to have specific sectoral agreements with the applicant States in each area of the economy? Have the Nine indicated whether any aid from Community funds which may be forthcoming to help the new entrants will be conditioned by their acceptance of a common discipline, at least in some sectors, even in advance of their full accession?

Dr. Owen: There is no question about it—the full obligations and rigours of Community membership are not yet fully understood by some of the applicant countries. This is an issue which will emerge in the detailed negotiations. There is no point in undertaking a transitional period and failing, within a couple of years, to live up to the obligations.

Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement of the Community is the first priority for this Government in its relations with the existing Community? Does he further agree that that is an essential precondition for maintaining this Government's policy for a wider and looser grouping of States in Europe, in order to avoid the federalist tendencies that may solidify and perpetrate themselves if we do not achieve that objective?

Dr. Owen: I am a strong believer in enlargement and in a wider involvement in the membership of the EEC. I do not accept that that means that it will be a looser grouping. It will be different. I believe that the Community is evolving constantly. It is very difficult to predict its future pattern. One thing that I will predict is that it will not be federalist.

Mr. Forman: What effect is progress towards enlargement of the Community likely to have on the need for further progress towards success in the multilateral trade negotiations, particularly on

the non-tariff side? Is there likely to be a conflict between the two?

Dr. Owen: I do not think so. The multilateral trade negotiations must take account of the question of enlargement, but I do not think that it is crucial. The economic significance of the tariff reductions is not tremendous, particularly since they are being phased over a period of time. It is the other issues—the question of subsidies and the question of safeguards and protection—that are of profound significance to us and to other countries.

European Parliament (Members)

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EEC counterparts on the legal and political aspects of a dual mandate for directly-elected European Members of Parliament.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): None.

Mr. Townsend: What lessons have the Government learned from the attitude of other European Governments that are faced with this problem? Do the Government rule out the dual mandate in any way?

Mr. Tomlinson: The policy of the Government is clearly laid down in the Green Paper, Cmnd. 6399, and in the White Paper, Cmnd. 6768. Our view is that the dual mandate should be optional, and the European Assembly Elections Act made provision for this. The views of other Governments have been made quite clear, and they are taking a similar view.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the ever-increasing load on Members of this House, both in Parliament and in their constituencies, and the increasing load on Members of the European Assembly, does my hon. Friend think that it is practicable for one person to be a member of both Assemblies? Does he think that it is possible for any one person to carry out his or her duties effectively in both Assemblies?

Mr. Alan Clark: You can do anything on £40,000 a year.

Mr. Tomlinson: That question must be directed primarily to the political parties


in the process that they go through in determining their candidates. That is the point at which this matter will be considered.

Mr. Marten: As the question of membership of the European Assembly raises the question of pay for Members of that Assembly, if any, will the Minister propose at the next Council of Ministers that the Members of the Assembly, if any, should be paid the lowest pay of any country and that each national Parliament should top it up, according to its will?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will think that that is a most interesting suggestion and will give it the consideration that it merits. My right hon. Friend also will probably want to consider the response that he had to the discussions that took place in the Council of Ministers. The Council invited views from the European Assembly.

Mr. Madden: Can my hon. Friend tell us when final decisions on salaries will be reached? Will he confirm that the British Government remain opposed to super salaries and allowances and that any British Euro-Members will be subject to the British rates of tax?

Mr. Tomlinson: No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the statement made by the Foreign Secretary after the Council of Ministers' meeting expressing the view that this matter should be resolved by the end of this year. I hope, as I am sure all hon. Members hope, that that will be the case.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he proposes to put on the agenda at the next EEC Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Judd: The written statement of forthcoming Council business will be deposited tomorrow and I expect to make my oral statement on 3rd July.

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister remember a proposal some time ago that we should have a Euro-passport? Will he raise this matter at the Council of Ministers and then give the House an

assurance that he will not agree to do such a thing—using the Royal Prerogative—until he has the permission of this House?

Mr. Judd: As the hon. Member knows very well, this raises the subject of the Royal Prerogative. As he also knows, I have on many occasions, in response to his very genuine and passionate concern about this issue, given an undertaking that we will come to no definitive decision until the House has had a full opportunity to debate and discuss the matter.

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend put on the agenda of the Council of Foreign Ministers' next meeting an item stating that the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster for the British people? This should be discussed, because if a referendum were taken again those people who voted "Yes" would vote "No", and we would come out of the EEC.

Mr. Judd: No one would want to gloss over the disappointments of the British people about some aspects of membership of the EEC. I assure my hon. Friend that the priority of this Government is to bring all their persuasive powers to bear in trying to improve life for the ordinary men, women and children who make up the Community. Because of my respect for my hon. Friend's convictions and his passionate views, I sincerely put it to him that it would be more constructive for him to bring his own political force to play in improving what is wrong with the EEC rather than to concentrate on fighting old battles.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to suggest a joint meeting between the Council of Ministers and the Agriculture Council in the near future.

Mr. Judd: No, Sir.

Mr. Madel: Does the Minister think that such a joint meeting would be the best way of considering whether a rural fund should be created within the EEC—a fund that would comprise the relevant parts of the Agricultural Fund, the Regional Fund and the Social Fund?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is highly arguable whether the common agricultural policy is the right way in which to follow socal priorities which may have significance and importance but which would not add to the prices paid by consumers. Our priorities include the objective of ensuring that within that policy consumers get a fairer deal compared with the interests of producers—interests which we believe are all too well represented.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is it not ludicrous that there are growing supplies of cheap food outside the bureaucratic barriers of the EEC? May I remind the Minister that there is no sense in which one can renegotiate EEC entry, because the present policy is a cornerstone of the Rome Treaty and all we can do is to scrap it or get out?

Mr. Judd: I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend. On reflection, I am sure that he will accept that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made significant progress in getting the Community to adjust to reality in its agricultural policies. We have three priorities in our approach to CAP. One is that we do not wish to see funds being used to build up wasteful surpluses. The second priority is to see the interests of consumers better represented as against the interests of producers. The third is to seek fairer access for the produce of third countries.

Mr. Farr: In any negotiations will the Minister make a serious attempt to staunch the flow of directives and documents which emanate from Brussels? Will he examine the serious situation that faces those who are thinking of going to the Continent in mini-coaches and who might well be stopped from entering Continental countries because of the lack of documents related to the tachograph—a system which we have not yet adopted in this country?

Mr. Judd: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Such operators can overcome the problem by keeping a log. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments in the second part of his supplementary question. Far too much time, effort and money go into producing paper in Europe.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Are not the successes of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture due to the fact that he has dropped the silly and outmoded idea of trying to get this country out of the Community and is doing his best to safeguard British interests inside it?

Mr. Judd: I believe that all Members of this House, whatever their genuine views in the past—and there have been grave differences in this House on the subject of the Community—would do the greatest service to the British people if they now accepted that we are members of the Community and that our task is to improve the lot of the British people within the Community.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have observed that, despite your proper request for brevity, only 12 general Foreign and Commonwealth Questions were answered at Question Time. Is it not a serious matter that on subjects touching overseas interests, and, indeed, the integrity and honour of our country, Ministers should be protected in this way?
Has the Foreign Secretary asked you, Sir, for permission to answer Question No. 14 which referred to a statement made in this House on 24th May—a statement that was totally misleading, though I accept unwittingly so? In those circumstances, if you have not received such a request, may we at least have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman that a statement will be made at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: The House will be aware that I called far fewer supplementary questions today, yet we reached only Question No. 11 on the first item.

Mr. Faulds: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: The only person who shouts "Shame" is the one who was waiting to be called. I can understand his feelings. The truth is that the House has the remedy in its own hands. If answers or supplementary questions are too long, the House should indicate what it feels about the matter, as it used to. I would inform the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that I have received no request from the Foreign


Office, and I am afraid that I cannot help him.

Sir B. Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What you say makes sense in regard to general questions. However, my specific request relates to a Question which touches on a statement made in this House by a Minister. I said that that happened unwittingly, because the person concerned is a man of great integrity, but it was a statement that was totally misleading. I shall not go beyond that now. In those circumstances, is it not proper, right and necessary to ask through you, Sir, for a statement to be made? This matter touches on the credibility of a Minister.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the hon. Gentleman to make that request is when we deal with business questions tomorrow. That will be a very good opportunity, if he catches my eye.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible that there is a form of Parkinson's law in accordance with which supplementary questions expand to fill the time available?

Mr. Speaker: I always listen with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. Something has happened in the respect that he suggests, and I have been blaming it on the fact that our proceedings are being broadcast. However, I do not think I can lay blame any more at that door. I believe that hon. Members have forgotten how to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall be pleased to hear the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who is a regular contributor.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, would it not expedite Questions if you were to make a preferential choice of those who make brief and pithy supplementary questions, as I always do?

Mr. Speaker: I shall try to bear the hon. Gentleman in mind.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Nationalised Industries; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is my second attempt to introduce this Bill in the House. I introduced the Bill about a year ago, and it fell because of lack of time.
The House already, in its wisdom, has created a Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with Government Departments. We have a Parliamentary Commisisoner to deal with the National Health Service and we have now created Parliamentary Commissioners to deal with local government. I have had the honour for the last four years to serve on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. During that period I have come to realise the value of the Parliamentary Commissioner, commonly called the Ombudsman. I believe that this system makes a vital contribution to our democratic process and enables Members of Parliament to have problems investigated in some depth.
We in this House have a right and a duty to fight for citizens and to uphold their rights in pressing complaints as citizens of this country. One problem we face in our society is that we are creating bigger and bigger organisations. This makes it more and more difficult for the citizen to get his rights cured The large industries in our society are often the nationalised industries. Therefore I believe that there is a need for a Parliamentary Commissioner to examine complaints about the nationalised industries.
If one examines the annual reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the last four years, one does not see many cases which he has had to refuse to investigate because they are part of the nationalised industries, but if one adds complaints about the Post Office, it can be seen that he has had to reject 25 to 35 per cent. of complaints in that respect. Therefore. I believe that there


is a need to improve the position in that regard.
The Member of Parliament has two steps to take if he wishes to complain about a nationalised industry. First, he can write to the chairman of a nationalised industry, and sometimes that produces a result. Normally he receives a nice public relations letter saying that everything is now in order and that the matter is being looked after, and suggesting that the hon. Member concerned can forget about it. However, if that is not good enough the hon. Member can go to a consumer council. That council can examine the complaint and often will put the matter right.
However, there is no examination beyond that point to see whether there is anything that is happening in the nationalised industry which affects other peaple and which could be put right to assist other citizens. The consumer councils do a good job, and I do not want to knock their work, but they merely put right individual complaints. They do not get behind the case at issue, do not examine the books, and do not carry out a full investigation. For that reason I believe that the provisions of my Bill will further a citizen's rights.
We operate the Select Committee procedure, and that looks at the nationalised industries. But I believe that the role of the Select Committees is to look at the policy, the financing and the programme of a nationalised industry rather than to investigate individual complaints. There is, therefore, a role here for a new commissioner to play.
We then come to the consumer councils. I was unaware until today of how many there were. If I as a Member of Parliament do not know how many there are, obviously the citizen does not know either and is therefore not in contact with them in the way that he should be.
Perhaps I may give six examples of matters that have crossed my desk which I believe could have been referred to an Ombudsman of this sort. A school was being built in my constituency but it could not get a gas supply laid on. Every way possible was tried but without success. I wrote to the relevant consumer council and the gas supply was connected, but no one said why the delay had occur-

red or why the school could not have the gas. A commissioner would do that.
My next example concerns the electricity boards. In my constituency recently the board sent out cards explaining that meter readers could not call a second time because it had insufficient staff owing to sickness and so on. A commissioner could investigate to find out why the board could not do proper meter readings.
British Airways is another case. People I know went on holiday. They went to Heathrow and were waiting to be called for their flight. They were not called. They were shown instead into a lounge which was not equipped with Tannoy and they were not therefore informed that the aeroplane was taking off. Too late, they discovered that the aircraft had left. They wrote to British Airways and I wrote to the chairman. In spite of all the letters that were written there was no way in which an investigation could be held of why that happened. These people were fobbed off, they got no compensation and they lost a great chunk of their holiday.
British Rail is another area where an improvement is needed. I have a number of complaints about timetables that are not relevant to people's travel arrangements and that often do not work, That is something that a Parliamentary Commissioner might correct.
We come next to the Post Office. For some odd reason letters coming from Norfolk to my constituency seem to take two days longer to arrive than letters from anywhere else. I have written on a number of occasions to the Post Office, but all I get back is a letter saying that the Post Office does not understand it. My constituents understand it. They think that there is incompetence and error and these need to be investigated.
About 18 months ago in my constituency coal prices were higher than anywhere else in the country. The National Coal Board could not understand why, and nor could the retailers. No one could provide an answer. That is something else that could be investigated by the Commissioner under my Bill.
The local bus company in Reading, the Alder Valley Bus Company, could not get parts for its buses. We were riding


around Reading in Bournemouth Corporation buses which were a gay yellow and which may have enhanced the community, but that does not help us to understand the possible fundamental reason for this occurrence, a matter which should be investigated.
My conclusion is that the nationalised industries have a monopoly. They use vast sums of taxpayers' money. They do not seem to take as much account of the consumer as private industry does. We need watchdogs in this House. We have the Select Committees to which I have already referred. In addition, outside there are the consumer councils that do a reasonable job. But we need an Ombudsman to pursue obvious questions of maladministration, to make a report and perhaps in that way to improve the standards provided of service provided to our citizens and deal more effectively with their grievances.

Mr. Michael English: And the same should apply to private companies that take the public's money.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. David Hunt, Sir George Young, Dr. Alan Glyn, Mr. Michael Neubert, Mr. Michael Morris and Mr. Tim Smith.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Mr. Durant accordingly presented a Bill to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Nationalised Industries; and for purposes connected therewith; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DOORSTEP SELLING)

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EEC Documents Nos. R/113/77 and R/134/78 on Contracts negotiated away from Business Premises.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and her hon. Friends.

Mr. Giles Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to move the amendment prior to the main motion or not?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman did that it would be the first time in history, and I suggest that we do not make history today. Mr. John Fraser.

Mr. Fraser: The draft directive which is before the House is the first such consumer protection measure to be considered on the Floor of the House, and I welcome the opportunity of listening to the views of hon. Members—indeed, that is why we have the debate.
This draft directive on doorstep selling was born of the EEC consumer protection policy which was adopted by the EEC Ministers in April 1975. Some people think that since then it has grown up to be a rather awkward and disagreeable child, and some have even gone so far as to question its legitimacy, certainly under article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, and I have heard others question its legitimacy in even more robust terms. The draft has so incensed the mail order traders that they have begun to pamphleteer on a scale worthy of Thomas Paine—and I stress there the question of scale, not of content. Like Tom Paine, they have carried their dissent to the Continent, and with some degree of success, because they obtained a favourable resolution from the European Assembly.
On mail order catalogue selling I ought to explain my own views and those of my Department. If the draft should become a directive—and I do not mean in its present form—I do not believe that the controls in it should be inapplicable to mail order traders, but I do believe


that they should be innocuous to them. That is to say, the mail order trader ought to have no greater obligations and duties than he would have in any event under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act for credit transactions and he ought not to have to assume more than broadly similar obligations for cash transactions.
If that line were followed, I do not think that mail order traders would be inconvenienced by the imposition of a standard of protection which many of them already widely exceed. There is some merit, particularly of simplicity and fairness, if controls on contractual matters and on the law of credit are universally applicable.
We have always, especially in negotiations in Europe, resisted ad hoc changes in the law of credit and the law of contract. We ought to resist ad hoc exemptions also, so that in saying that mail order traders ought to come within scope fully recognise their problems about documentation, and I fully recognise the inadequacies of the draft directive as it stands. I recognise also the high standards of fairness and efficiency of mail order traders in this country and the high regard in which they are held, although that is not to say that there could not be some occasion in the future when someone who was not a member of his association and was unscrupulous abused the rights of consumers.
I take issue with the European Commission on many aspects of this directive. I shall deal with my detailed objections to it. I also take issue whether this is an area where the Commission should intervene. First, the matters in this directive barely involve intra-Community trade. Many of the hard-selling techniques seem to come from the other side of the Atlantic rather than from the other side of the Channel.
My second objection is that under the terms of the directive—and this is certainly the view of Danish Ministers with whom I have recently discussed the matter —member States would be permitted to ban doorstep selling altogether, as is done in Denmark and, perhaps, in Luxembourg. If other States can go beyond the terms of the directive there and ban doorstep selling, this can hardly be called an act of harmonisation.
Thirdly, I have some objection about whether the Commission ought to intervene in this area. If the Commission had not intervened—and this applies not only with this draft directive, but in other instances too—we would probably already have legislated in this country to deal with cash transactions on the doorstep as well as credit transactions. We have already legislated for credit with a cooling-off period. Shortly, canvassing for sales on credit will require special consent with a consumer credit licence.
Having made my fundamental objections to intervention in this area and having raised a warning light for future activities by the Commission, I agree that doorstep sales can represent a serious abuse of consumers. I think that it would be helpful to the House if I gave some examples. The main problem with doorstep selling is that the consumer can be taken unawares by high-pressure salesmen. The consumer could be an old-age pensioner or a spouse who would normally confer with the other partner before coming to a purchasing decision.
Pressure doorstep selling takes place at the initiative of the salesmen, not that of the consumer. Therefore, there is no opportunity to compare other prices or goods. Switch selling is possible. One example is where a so-called repair man says that he will look at a customer's vacuum cleaner or washing machine, tells the person concerned that it is not working and will not work again, that it is a write-off, and that the best thing is to buy a new washing machine or vacuum cleaner from him.. That is what happens with doorstep selling, whether for cash or credit.
In other cases, salesmen may pose as spokesmen for an education department. It may be the education department of their own firms, not of the local authority. They can bring about sales in that way. Although it is illegal, others pose as representatives of charities.
Another abuse is that, after a sale for cash, it may be impossible to trace the address of the selling company. A credit case came to my notice only yesterday afternoon. A lady was approached by a double glazing contractor and was sold, with a hard sell on the doorstep, a double glazing contract.


She now finds that her bill is to be about £2,000, and she bitterly regrets her own impetuosity.
From 1st July this year, under our domestic legislation, anyone selling goods and services on credit on the doorstep will need a special licence either as a creditor or as a broker, and, subject to certain safeguards, debts incurred by unlicensed traders or through unlicensed brokers may be irrecoverable.
For credit transactions there is ample legislative provision for the protection of consumers. The main safeguards are licensing, which I have described, and a cooling-off period. But for cash transactions there is a need to protect the consumer from the surprise attack of the unscrupulous doorstep salesman of goods or services. The consumer's predicament in these circumstances puts me in mind of the cinema advert for "Jaws" with the unsuspecting woman being approached by the shark. If the House will excuse the expression, we still need laws against "Jaws"—at least the jaws of doorstep salesmen.
To the extent only that the draft directive provides an opportunity to deal with abuses on a Community-wide basis, I welcome it. But however much we welcome the draft directive in principle, and no matter how much unanimity there is about the evils which it seeks to remedy, it has serious defects and can have perverse results.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May we infer from what the Minister said that none of those abuses has ever been laid at the door of British catalogue mail order trading?

Mr. Fraser: Earlier, I said that our mail order traders have a high reputation for fairness and efficiency, and often the protection which they give to their customers goes far beyond not only what is right but what is required by law. I thoroughly agree with the comment made by the hon. Gentleman.
This draft directive has serious defects and can have perverse results. It is not acceptable in its present form, and we shall press for it to be withdrawn unless it is substantially changed.
I shall conclude by listing the defects which we have identified and upon which we have robustly negotiated.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Government will definitely not accept this directive in anything like its present form?

Mr. Fraser: That is exactly what I said. In its present form it is not an acceptable basis for legislation or, indeed, for changes in existing legislation on the statute book. I agree with the Opposition in the spirit of their amendment. Whether we withdraw the draft directive or have it substantially replaced by another document is a technicality that we need not explore in great detail. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit, attack and point of the Opposition's amendment.
I should like to give a warning about over-reacting to a draft directive. It is not a proposal from Ministers. This draft directive, like many of its brothers and sisters coming from Brussels, is nowhere near agreement. It would be unthinkable if such a draft directive as this were to be approved as it stands. It is merely a proposal capable of debate and demanding change—even fundamental change. If draft directives were seen in that light, I think that there would be less concern than we have had in the past about them. I assure the House that nothing in the scope of the draft will be foisted on this country.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Accepting that point, am I correct in saying that we are dealing with a revised draft directive? If so, this is presumably an updated version of what was even more unacceptable. If that is the case, does the Minister feel that he should underline, yet again, that it will not be enough to say that we shall go back for a third bite of the cherry but that we shall do our best to start on a clean sheet of paper with a totally new approach to this matter?

Mr. Fraser: It is important that there should be a new approach rather than a clean sheet of paper. Since the draft directive was published, a set of amendments has been suggested by the Commission. Those amendments are published in the second document before the


House. Some of those amendments make the draft directive a little better, for example in respect of doorstep deliveries, but others make it worse. I do not regard the amending document as in any sense a redeeming feature of the original draft. I hope that I have made that clear.
I come now to the defects. First, the scope of the document—I am dealing with both the document and the proposed amendments—is diffuse and unclear. We are not certain how trade premises are to be defined. As it stands, it could apply to an auction in a private house or to a large sale perhaps at Mentmore which is far removed from what would normally be regarded as trade premises. It could, preversely, apply to the sale of a television set on hire purchase, for the technical reason that the television set is being sold by a finance company, not by the person who displays it in his window. We could have that kind of perverse result.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the Minister indicate whether, in his view, an AA breakdown service vehicle would fall into that category?

Mr. Fraser: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not miss that one. I agree that control of doorstep sales should apply only where the contract is not at the initiative of the customer—in other words, where the customer is taken by surprise. To frame it in any other way—whether they are our proposals or EEC proposals—would rob consumers of the freedom or ability to strike a bargain or to obtain a service at a time when they wanted it and at the price they wanted to pay. The scope is too wide and the definitions are too diffuse and unclear.
I come next to the lower cash limit. Originally, it was £17—roughly equivalent to the number of units of account. There is a proposal to reduce it still further. The lower cash limit in the directive is too low. It would be the subject of frequent change. It is totally unpredictable, because it is tied to units of account. It is not expressed in our currency. Therefore, it is not acceptable. In my view, it should be left to national judgment, perhaps within a band, to determine the cash limit. We would want this matter to be consistent with our

own policy under the Consumer Credit Act.
It is difficult to make laws simple. However, I am convinced that the law should be as simple as possible for both consumers and traders. To have a diversity—a variety—of cash limits for doorstep transactions, depending whether they are controlled under the Consumer Credit Act or are dealt with by European directives, some tied to sterling and others to monetary units of account, can only be confusing to the consumer. Therefore, it must be left to our national judgment to decide the starting point for the control.
I come to the next objection. The directive should not apply to doorstep deliveries such as bread and milk. I do not think that I need to make any more point about that. I think I have the unanimous support of the House.
Nor should it apply to emergency services—and I now come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), because as the directive is drafted, if a motorist's vehicle breaks down on a motorway, say the M1—or in the hon. Gentleman's case, the M4—and along comes the AA emergency service and the AA man draws up to the stalled car and asks, "Would you like some help?" under the directive as it is drafted, there is a doorstep salesman, the AA representative, initiating a doorstep sale with the motorist on the hard shoulder of the Ml or the M4.
As the directive is drafted at the moment, that would probably be caught as a doorstep sale, and there would be a cooling-off period. The motorist would not want a cooling-off period because he would probably have been cooling off for long enough, anyway, before the AA breakdown van came along. So the directive ought not to apply to emergency services, whether they be plumbing, electrical repairs or motor repairs.

Mr. David Mitchell: The grave danger is that the consumer, being invited to join the AA and then obtaining its service, will obtain its service and then renege on his membership of the AA or whatever the organisation may be. I hope that the Minister will have in mind in any future negotiations in this particular area that there has to be protection not only for the AA but for a


number of other organisations in a similar field. Perhaps he would give me that assurance.

Mr. Fraser: People have all sorts of regrets about the associations which they have joined. But of course, the point that the hon. Gentleman makes must be taken into account.
Next, I do not believe that the directive should apply to insurance contracts.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Hear, hear!

Mr. Fraser: I am not saying that there should not be some control over hard selling of insurance on the doorstep.
Indeed, at the moment there is a cooling-off period, I think, of 10 days for sales of life insurance. But that ought to be subject to an entirely separate regime and is not amenable to this sort of proposal.
Nor do I think that the directive ought to apply to home study courses, with which I shall not deal now, because we have debated them separately on another European directive dealing with correspondence courses, which excited a number of hon. Members in a Standing Committee.
Next, I come to documentation, which has caused the Mail Order Traders Association some concern. In my view, the draft directive goes into far too much detail. It must be our objective, in terms of efficiency and cost, to keep documentation to the very minimum. When I look at the pamphlet issued by the Mail Order Traders Association, in which it talks about 790 million additional pieces of paper a year, I do not call that documentation; I call that Community confetti. That sort of detailed documentation and control is something, again, which we must decide for ourselves, and not impose an unreasonable burden on those who are carrying on perfectly fair and honest trading.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not, in any case, contrary to the treaty, and particularly to article 189, to describe these details in a directive? Es it not a fact that a directive is specifically limited to questions of principle? Directives are now being issued as though they were complete codes of law—that

is to say, as if they were regulations and not directives at all. It is not only in this case. It is in every other case, nowadays, that directives suffer from this vice.

Mr. Fraser: I would not entirely agree. I have had some experience of dealing with directives in the employment area—although this is not directly germane to this debate—and of dealing with directives on notice of mass dismissals, on equal pay throughout Europe and on equal opportunity for women. I believe that when one has a directive, one has to have a sufficient degree of precision to enable it to be properly interpreted by member States. It would probably create even more confusion if what the hon. and learned Gentleman calls a statement of principle were to be a statement of principle so wide and so vague that it caused even more concern in the Community than one drawn with a fair degree of precision.
On the other hand, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the method of carrying out the decision in a directive should be left to the judgment of member States. To that extent, I agree with him that there is far too much detail here, and that the method of implementation must be a matter for domestic legislation. To go so far as to have an annex to this draft directive which prescribes the exact form in which the consumer has to give notice of cancellation is going to ludicrous lengths in trying to prescribe the nature of domestic control of what is an admitted mischief.
Article 4 is the provision which says that the consumer must sign the document personally. I shall give just one instance of how one has to look at local custom. There are many instances where a husband signs for a wife, or a wife signs for a husband, on a doorstep sale. It is a perfectly reasonable arrangement and, of course, local custom and the way in which we conduct our affairs must again be a matter for local judgment when we come to these matters.
The directive goes on to say that contracts should be automatically void. I do not believe that that should be the case at all. To leave both the vendor and the purchaser with a nullity is not right. In my view, a contract ought to be voidable or enforceable only by a court. I think that the nature and the form of the


cancellation is also a matter for existing local domestic judgment and for existing practice. Again, the time within which one can cancel an agreement is a matter which we have to decide for ourselves.
I happen to believe that our proposed five-day cooling-off period for credit transactions—and when that comes into force, that will replace the existing three-day cooling-off period, which now applies only to hire-purchase credit sale and conditions of sale agreements—coupled with the time that documents will spend in the post, is an adequate period, and we should not be wasting our time discussing in Europe whether it should be five, six or seven days. As long as there is an adequate cooling-off period, that ought to be enough.
Another objection to the draft directive is that consumers should, as with the Consumer Credit Act, be under an obligation to take care of goods which they have decided to return.
I hope that I have made clear to the House, first of all, that there is a mischief to be dealt with, although part of it we have already dealt with by domestic legislation—the Consumer Credit Act—and I do not want to have to change a piece of legislation which has taken a long time to implement, after a long and detailed discussion with trade interests.
Secondly, I hope that I have made clear the status of the draft—and I emphasise the word "draft". Thirdly, I hope that I have made clear its inadequacies. Finally, I hope that I have demonstrated to the House that we have a rather frank and robust approach to this sort of proposal.

Mr. Tim Smith: Given that credit transactions are already adequately covered by domestic legislation, as the Minister said, and given that he would exempt from this doorstep deliveries, emergency services, insurance contracts and home study courses, will he say how wide is the area to be covered?

Mr. Fraser: It would be fairly wide. It would apply to most goods and services ordinarily peddled, sold or traded on the doorstep. One thinks of vacuum cleaners, educational books and encyclopaedias, but there are serious abuses. Let us consider provisions for roofing which are sold on the doorstep, surfacing front

drives with tarmac and double glazing. There is a fairly long list of goods and services which are sold in this way which would, in my view, be quite rightly affected by controls, whether they be on credit or on cash transactions.
As I say, I hope that I have made it clear that I have a fairly frank and robust approach to this directive. As I said at the beginning, I do not think that it is the sort of area in which the Commission ought to intrude. I look forward to hearing the—

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fraser: I was about to say that I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views. Perhaps those of the hon. Member will be the first of them.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the Minister say quite clearly whether he is accepting the Opposition amendment in its entirety?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I accept the Opposition amendment. I ought to make it quite clear that I interpret the Opposition amendment as being the withdrawal of the proposals as they stand in this draft directive, both in their substance and in their style, and their replacement with something which is more acceptable to both the Government and the House. Of course, there will be further negotiations, and I would want to keep the House informed of the nature of those further negotiations and the fundamental changes which I hope to see made.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add
'but does not consider that they are an acceptable basis for legislation in the United Kingdom, and urges the Government to secure their withdrawal'.
Now that history has been made, we can get down to our normal business. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will accept the amendment.
I must remind the Minister, after his rapid review of the problems associated with this directive, that it has been around for a long time. It was published on 19th January 1977, discussed in the Select Committee ably chaired by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), reported on by the Select Committee in another place and debated at length in


another place. It is by no means unusual, therefore, for us to come forward urgently with such a positive and cogent amendment as I have just moved, because little has happened to show that the Government could achieve any significant changes in the original directive. That contrasts oddly with the robust speech by the Minister. I can only hope that it will be matched by robust action.
We want it laid on the line that if this directive, in this form or anything like it, came before the Council of Ministers before it reached the House for discussion again, it would be vetoed by our representative as an unacceptable basis for legislation. I intend to shorten my remarks, if I can, because it seems that there is a wide measure of agreement on this matter.
The directive forms an important part of EEC consumer policy. We are not suggesting that the British consumer is put more at risk by our attempt to alter the directive. On the contrary, as presently drafted, the directive is dangerous to many real consumer interests, as the Minister has made clear.
Of course, both sides agree that we must protect British consumers from unscrupulous traders and that we must provide some protection compatible with the maintenance of competitive choice of goods and prices—provided that such protection can be seen to be both necessary and effective. In principle, we agree that the unscrupulous doorstep salesman should be stopped and that the consumer should enjoy the same protection in cash transactions as she currently enjoys in credit transactions.
But is the directive the best way of doing that in the United Kingdom? We agree with the Minister that it is not and that we should be ill advised to use the directive procedure in this area. This should be a matter in which national laws or even national administrative action is more efficient than invoking the panoply of Brussels.
It is ludicrous that this directive should be rooted in article 100, which says:
The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, issue directives for the approximation of such provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States as directly

affect the establishment or functioning of the common market.
It is extraordinary that a directive like this should be considered so important as to be issued under article 100.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Member saying that, in the Opposition's view, there is no need for EEC legislation on this issue at all?

Mr. Shaw: That is not what I was saying, if the right hon. Gentleman would listen with care. I was saying that to deal with the abuse of doorstep selling there may not need to be any use of Community directives, because we should be able to produce adequate safeguards for United Kingdom consumers. There may be areas where the Community has a role to play in consumer protection—harmonisation and safety of products, for instance—but in the case of the doorstep salesman, going down, as the directive proposes, to very small amounts of money, there must be different ways of dealing with it which would be more appropriate in this country. This seems a hefty sledgehammer to crack a nut on our doorsteps.
I cannot believe that there is any intraCommunity trade in doorstep selling which is a threat to the consumer. Are we to believe that our constituents are at risk from phalanxes of French onion sellers pedalling through Pudscy or from a sudden invasion of itinerant Italian ice cream sellers inching their way through Ilfracombe? That is a nonsense.
However, there is evidence that consumers are at risk. The study referred to in evidence to both Select Committees is that undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading in 1974. That suggested that many consumers had laid complaints and that over half of them related to transactions or purchases of less than £10 in value. It is important that the House should know that that study was conducted by asking trading standards officers to do an analysis of complaints which derived from doorstep selling in a five-month period in 1974.
There were 218 such complaints and 122 related to goods and services at prices of £10 or below. The main range of items was covered by complaints such as book and magazine subscriptions, servicing of


domestic appliances, cosmetics, photography and such matters, but those complaints were part of a large total of consumer complaints, which in 1974, according to the OFT's report, reached 406,845. So even if, allowing for the five months, one doubles the number, only a minute percentage of total complaints can be seen to be derived from the activities of doorstep salesmen.
The number has gone up. In 1975–76, the number, including cash and credit transactions, reached 535 out of a total of 470,503. For the latest year for which there was a report—1976–77—there were 607 recorded out of a total of 590,000.
The more important factor for us is not the actual number—we all know that for every one who goes through the procedure of complaint, there are several hundreds who do not, although they are equally affected—but the fact that it is undoubtedly the disadvantaged sector of the community, the elderly, the housebound and the lonely, who are most at risk from unscrupulous door-to-door salesmen, and it is those people we have a duty to protect. But the House may conclude that this directive will not produce that result.
When representatives of the OFT and the National Consumer Council gave evidence to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Farnworth, a Mr. Healey said:
We believe that doorstep selling can serve a useful service to the consumer. The problem is to cure the abuses and not to ban it.
I think that we recognise that that is the state of mind in which we should approach the directive.
However, if the EEC is determined to legislate in this area, the House must decide whether the directive will do the job for the United Kingdom consumer. Our view, as the Minister has said, is that it does not and should be withdrawn.
Despite the amendments, document R/134/78 is far too wide, covering credit transactions, insurance and mobile shops. There is some doubt whether the exemption of foodstuffs would apply to those mobile shops which sell many other products. They might be in the ludicrous position of being exempt when selling bread, milk or eggs but not when selling detergents and other household items.
Agency mail order trading and professional transactions are within the directive's scope and should be removed from it. The legal definitions are inadequate. particularly the crucial definition of what constitutes a doorstep contract. The same applies to the definition of business premises and the price payable. As the Select Committee has said, that should be more comparable with our own terms in the Consumer Credit Act.
Thirdly, taking deposits should not be forbidden, as the directive would provide. Even if offered, the directive will now say that deposits must not be taken. This is a cause of particular concern to the double glazing industry or to central heating where products are tailored to individual houses and cannot easily be removed.
Fourthly, there is the question of failing to safeguard traders' property. The Minister alluded briefly to this, but it is a very important matter. The directive apparently suggests that during the cooling-off period not only would property be at risk but recovery of the property would be at the expense and the risk of the trader. We feel that the trader should have some rights in this regard. A fifth point is that the whole directive is at variance with our Consumer Credit Act in terms of the length of cooling-off period, in terms of the threshold value and also in terms of the handling of tripartite contracts.
More important than the matters I have outlined, and the most important single point in my view, is the matter of mail order trading, because this is something in which the consumer is most significantly at risk if the type of agency mail order trading which has developed in this country should be removed. We strongly believe that this should be totally exempted.
Although the Minister has not perhaps gone as far as I would wish initially, we hope to ensure that any new directive coming before the House will have exemption for the form of agency mail order trading which operates in this country. That is the view of the National Consumer Council, which has written to the Mail Order Traders Association saying:
We have taken the opportunity of making known infomally to both the British Government and to Commission officials our view that


catalogue mail order trading should not be included within the scope of the Directive. We shall continue to do so.
I would say unequivocally to the House that not only should it not have included in this directive but it should not be included in any other subsequent directive coming before the House.
What is most obvious is that this is not a source of serious complaint. It retails products to over 15 million people. It presents a 14-day sale-or-return period, which surely is very adequate protection to the consumer and a prevention from being pressurised into an immediate purchase. Certainly, if on top of the 14-days sale-or-return provision, the industry was required to adopt a further period of one week as recommended in the directive, the additional capital cost of some £35 million would be a ludicrous sum eventually to be paid by the consumer for that increased service.
Above all, its affects range from the urban working family, who find shopping difficult because there are at least two and possibly more wage-earners on the go, to the rural widow living in isolation; and through some 4 million agents it ranges throughout the length and breadth of the country and provides a very important service.
The reasons given by Mr. Commissioner Burke in his report to the European Parliament were feeble in the extreme. He seemed to suggest in the first instance that in the opinion of the Commission it is not possible to make a distinction between a catalogue and other documents. Frankly, most people can make such a distinction. The Commissioner failed to understand that we are talking about agency mail order trading and not trading by simple catalogue. He says with regard to the cooling-off period:
If, therefore, mail order companies are not obliged to concede a cooling-off period to the consumer, but with the proviso that they confer on him the right to return the goods within 14 days, it will be impossible to impose a cooling-off period on any other trade, because the conditions of making the agreement are the same.
I wonder whether consumers would rather have a 14-day sale-or-return on goods or a seven-day cooling-off period. It strikes me that there is no doubt at all that they would infinitely prefer the 14-day arrangement.
Finally, he said:
If, therefore, you exempt one branch of commerce from the scope of this directive, other branches of commerce will want the same exemption, and there will always be some particular reason justifying such a demand.
Frankly, that means that exemptions of any kind from any directive at any time are not acceptable. I find that a ludicrous state of affairs.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Burke is raising hares—false hares—and he is possibly even raising superfluous hairs, and they should be cut out, preferably one by one. I am aware that the Government have now taken a robust stance on this and that the Minister has said today that he is prepared substantially to renegotiate the whole context of this directive, and that nothing like it in terms of content or form should be regarded as a measure to be approved by this House. I am grateful for that. But he might take as his text the report that came from a Select Committee in another place which seemed to me to contain some of the more robust statements made about this invidious directive. If I may quote partially from its conclusion:
While wholly endorsing strict and effective consumer protection in this sphere, the Committee in no way support those provisions of the Directive which appear to have been designed less for the protection of the general consumer than for the competitiveness of the Continental shopkeeper. In a country such as the United Kingdom which has a long history of door to door trading, the apparent attempt to discourage traders from this practice appears to the Committee all the more undesirable.
The Committee conclude that the present draft (R.113.77) is unworkable as a piece of legislation, and that much of it is unacceptable in the light of current trading practice in this country. They recommend to the House and to the Government that negotiations should proceed with particular caution on a Directive the provisions of which appear to have been drafted in a manner which the Committee can only describe as singularly loose and inadequate.
The House should have the opportunity—and the Opposition by tabling this amendment have made clear where we stand—to deal a firm and I trust final blow to this directive and its amendments. Let us be quite clear that we cannot accept this kind of intervention in affairs of this kind which is so contrary to the standards of trading which have been developed over such a long period of time. I recognise that the EEC has a perfect right to issue directives for consultation with member States, but member


States themselves, through their Parliaments, equally have a right to express a strong opinion when they find that their own concerns are placed at risk. I believe that that is the case with this directive and therefore, in accepting the amendment which I have moved, the House will considerably strengthen the Government in seeking a total redraft of this directive. I trust that it will result in something quite different.
As far as we are concerned, this directive should be completely withdrawn. If it is ultimately found necessary, in the interests of the cash trade on the doorstep to come forward with another, I suggest to the Minister that it would be better timed if it came at the same time as the directive on consumer credit which is in course of preparation, so that the House might have an opportunity of looking at the total provisions for trade on cash and credit in the area of doorstep sales. I am glad that the Government have accepted this amendment. I trust that it is a challenge that they will willingly take up on behalf of the consumers and suppliers in the name of fair trading.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an important debate in which the House is engaged, although it is not yet quite clear how important; for there was a certain dichotomy in the speech of the Minister inviting the House to take note of the directive, a dichotomy not absent from the speech to which we have just listened from the Opposition Front Bench. There were two parts to the speech of the Minister. It was quite clear that he was hostile to the directive; but it was not equally clear what he wanted to happen. In one part of his speech he said that the Government were opposed to it "in its present form", implying thereby that it would be acceptable in a different form. He said the Government were opposed to it "as it stands", implying that if it were not as it stood but different, the Government could take a different view of the matter. The Minister said that nothing "of this scope" ought to be accepted as a directive; but in reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) he disclosed a very wide scope which he did not exclude from some future, amended directive. That was one side of the speech of the Minister.
The other side was much bolder and went much more to the root of things. He said that this is not a suitable subject for EEC legislation, because there was no impact of this area upon intra-Community sales. That is an important statement which has been made on behalf of the Government. They consider that where a subject does not affect intra-Community trade, it is not a proper subject for EEC legislation.
The Minister supported this view with other words. He said that this was "not the sort of area where the Commission ought to intrude". If that is what he meant and if, in that part of his speech, he was speaking with the authority of the Government, this is indeed an important debate, and we can now look back upon debates on a number of directives which have escaped being mauled and establish that they were also directives lying outside the area in which, in the opinion of the Government, the Commission ought to intrude.
The first example that comes to my mind is the directive on the quality of drinking water in this country. That is typical of the sort of EEC directive of which, night after night, the House has been invited to take note and with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to approve as a fit matter for EEC legislation. After today, it will be different. Whenever a directive is brought forward, the Government will ask themselves whether the subject has any impact upon intra-Community trade, upon the nature of the Common Market. If it has not, they will presumably tell the House, as the Minister told us today, that it is not a fit subject on which the EEC should be legislating and that no amount of amendment, improvement or limitation of its scope will render such a directive acceptable. So much for the Government.
This is also a great day for the Opposition. It is the first occasion on which they have had the temerity to place upon the Order Paper an amendment inviting disapproval of legislative proposals of the Commission. I notice the gratification with which the breasts of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and her hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) are swelling. However, the terminology of their amendment is a little


difficult to construe. The Opposition do not consider that these documents are
an acceptable basis for legislation in the United Kingdom".
What does that mean? Do the Opposition mean that this is not an acceptable form of EEC directive? Once made, a directive must be put into effect by United Kingdom legislation. Are the Opposition saying, as the Government are apparently saying, that this is not a subject on which the EEC ought to be legislating, or are they simply saying, as the Minister said in the milder half of his speech, that, in their present form, these documents are unsatisfactory to form an EEC directive and thus to form the basis of obligatory United Kingdom legislation?
The hon. Member for Pudsey strongly objected, in a magnificent phrase, to involving the panoply of Europe in such a matter. One felt then that he must be heart and soul with the Minister in repudiating the right of the EEC to intrude in a matter which does not affect intra-Community trade. But as we listened on, our confidence began to fade; for there followed the hypothesis "If the EEC is determined to legislate in this area." The hon. Gentleman said that if our masters were determined to legislate, we must try to secure certain amendments—which lands us back where we started.
It is disclosed in the explanatory memorandum to the second of the two documents that in the interval between their presentation, the directive has been to what is described as the "European Parliament"—I think that that term may be a new custom in explanatory memoranda. The Minister did not tell us what the European Assembly or Parliament had done about the directive; but I am reliably informed by a right hon. and learned Gentleman who is much in the counsels of the European Community that the Assembly approved it. It is true that the directive was approved by a majority—

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman's tardy amplification was caused by my rising to my feet, but it is a fact that the draft directive was not adopted unanimously. A most eloquent speech against it was made by my hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and strong criticisms were made on a number of aspects, including the applicability of article 100—the very point that the right hon. Gentleman was making, with his customary perspicacity earlier.

Mr. Powell: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first for identifying himself—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It was not difficult for me to be identified in this crowded Chamber.

Mr. Powell: I am also grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for shedding illumination upon what transpired in the European Assembly.
This past incident stimulated certain reflections in my mind as to what would be the situation after a few months have run their course. We are to democratise the Assembly. It has been thought fit to turn it into a directly elected Parliament which will take its decisions by majority. So it may be that in a year's time we shall be confronted by the fact that the European Assembly has, by a majority—as this House frequently does—approved the principle of legislating in this area and the content of the legislation.
Very different then would be the attitude of the Commission towards the Council of Ministers and towards the Government's endeavours to implement the alterations that the House wants. Very different would be the attitude of the Government towards bringing documents before the House for us to express a view upon them and to dare to say, in the face of a majority decision of the directly elected European Parliament, that the subject of these directives is not the sort of area in which the EEC ought to meddle, not a proper subject for EEC legislation.
We have all gone in very deep today. This is a significant event, because the House as a whole not merely dislikes these documents and what they contain but dislikes the idea of legislation on these subjects being taken out of the domestic sphere and transferred to the Community sphere. I doubt whether there is a single hon. Member who does not share that view, yet that is not the position in which we stand. If the policy enunciated by the Minister on behalf of the Government and


the aspiration—I choose a fairly neutral word—expressed from the Opposition Front Bench are to be made good, there will have to be very big changes in the relationship of the House with the legislative powers of the European Community.
Ironically and paradoxically, when great changes are to take place, the crystal that produces the precipitation, the event that brings about those great changes and makes them possible when they appeared impossible before, is often relatively trivial—an irritation, an indignation of ordinary people when they are brought face to face with the consequences of what we have been doing in the House. It is events of this sort which will gradually fill the cistern and add up towards the time when we shall decide in the House that we will not surrender to an external authority our power to make the law for this country.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in referring to the scope of Community legislation in his opening remarks, touched on the most important matter to which I shall be referring, and in respect of which I may slightly surprise him. I am not clear where the limits of the scope of Community legislation on consumer matters should be placed. Therefore. I might be the one Member in the Chamber who will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion as perhaps I have done on one or two others.
I begin by declaring an interest. For many years I have been associated with the co-operative movement which is involved in various ways in doorstep selling. Further, I have chaired the Sub-Committee of the Scrutiny Committee, which took evidence on the matters now before us. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, as I welcome what was sail by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). Many of the points that I would have made have already been covered. Therefore, I shall be considerably briefer.
The hon. Member for Pudsey commended the House of Lords Select Committee's robustness on these issues. It was perhaps in contrast that he suggested that the Scrutiny Committee had

been somewhat tepid and complacent in its views. That is a matter on which the House requires an explanation. The House of Lords Committee is empowered by its terms of reference to give an opinion on the substance of a Community instrument. It can do so, and it was right to do so. I support almost every word that is used in the relevant paragraphs.
The Scrutiny Committee, which this place has established, does not have that power. It has the power merely to report to the House if a matter is of legal or political importance and worthy of debate by the House. It does not have the power that is possessed by the House of Lords Committee to give a judgment on the question whether the substance is good or bad. I am sure that that explanation is not necessary for the hon. Member for Pudsey, but it is worth recording it for the future.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made. My remarks were in no sense designed to suggest that he and his Committee were acting too meekly. However, has he sought to try to give evidence to the Procedure Committee that his Committee should have powers comparable with those of the House of Lords Committee?

Mr. Roper: I have not given evidence to the Procedure Committee, but the Lord President has indicated that before the end of the Session there will be an opportunity to debate the best arrangements for our consideration of European Community business. One option that does not meet with universal support is that we should have powers similar to those of the House of Lords. There are advantages and disadvantages. No doubt there will be another occasion on which we can debate them at greater length.
I start with two biases, both of which, I suspect, are known to the House. First, I am in general in favour of the European Community. Secondly, I am in favour of Community legislation. Having said that, there are four questions that need to he considered with some care First, I think that there is general agreement, without turning to the difficult problem of article 100, to which we shall no doubt need to return, that there is a strong case for the Community to work for the removal in general of non-tariff barriers if we have a


Common Market. We should get rid not merely of tariff barriers erected against trading between the different countries but of non-tariff barriers.
The question arises whether differences in trading practices in different countries constitute non-tariff barriers for some traders. Article 100, on which the House of Lords Select Committee has produced an important report, in which it considers the impact of the directive and whether it is within the scope of the article, authorises the Commission to bring forward draft directives on occasions when there is a disparity between national legislation that may directly affect the functioning of the Common Market.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is identifying a difficulty that is not obvious to me. It would help me, and it may help others, if he would give some illustrations of the area of doubt. Is he able to cite anything that may come within the category of a barrier in this context?

Mr. Roper: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a specific piece of legislation?

Mr. Onslow: Yes.

Mr. Roper: If he had read the evidence that the Select Committee took, especially page 60—the evidence from the Glass and Glazing Federation—he would have the matter in mind. The final paragraph on page 60 states:
a number of our members would be keen to extend their activities in the Common Market countries hence our hope that obstacles to this method of selling may be taken away within the Common Market because we believe we have a dynamic industry that is capable of doing a good selling job for Britain.

Mr. John Fraser: The directive states that there is nothing to prevent other member States banning doorstep selling completely, which is what has happened in Denmark. The Danes have said that they have no intention of changing their practices and their ban.

Mr. Roper: I am aware of that, and I was coming to it. In answer to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), there may be some areas in which the desirability in general—we are talking about the general case rather than the particular

—of having common trading practices may enable such traders as double glaziers to operate on the same basis within not merely the United Kingdom but the Common Market if they attempt to sell double glazing to householders within the Community.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the directive does not have the ability to ensure that they are able to do so. If it did, it could be argued that that would be advantageous and would come within the scope of article 100.
The directive does not give double glaziers the power to sell on the doorstep in Denmark or in any other Community country that forbids such selling. The point that I am coming to, perhaps somewhat tortuously, is that although the case for non-tariff barriers being removed and the case for removing differences in trading practices are strong, it is not clear whether they apply in this instance.
The second question that has to be asked is whether the European Community has a role in consumer protection. It is an important problem, because it depends on what we mean by consumer protection. For example, it may be sensible for the Community to determine regulations on food additives so that manufacturers of foodstuffs will know that if they use certain additives they will be acceptable in any Community country. That overlaps consumer protection and trade barriers. In some countries there are specific regulations allowing certain additives to be used and they can be used to protect a national industry.
There are some non-tariff barriers, some requirements to harmonise different trading practices, that overlap the problems of consumer protection. When those non-tariff barriers are being considered it is important that the EEC should take into account the interests of consumers as well as the interests of manufacturers. Therefore, we should not rule that certain aspects of consumer protection are totally outside the scope of the Community. That is where I differ to some extent from the right hon. Member for Down, South.
It must be asked whether doorstep selling is an appropriate area for such action. I have already suggested that if it were possible to give traders some assurance that they could trade on the same basis


in each of the Nine countries, there might be a case within Community law as it stands for such a directive. But this is not to be so, because there will be an option open to member States to be even more restrictive than the restrictive nature of the directive.
When one considers the question of protection for the consumer one becomes sceptical about whether there is a case for the Community to act. That has been expressed by every speaker in the debate so far and it was made clear in evidence to the Committee. When one considers the details of the directive it is clear that it was drawn up without any understanding of the nature of some parts of United Kingdom commerce.
Agency mail order traders are an example. There is a good deal of mail order trade elsewhere in the Community but it is done on a different basis from that in the United Kingdom. It is clear that in spite of fairly lengthy attempts, not only by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection but by the mail order traders themselves with the Commission and the European Parliament, it is apparently imposssible to explain to Commissioner Burke and his staff the problems faced by mail order companies in this country.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that if he does envisage that a further directive on this matter will be introduced there will be total exclusion of the mail order catalogue trade. I hope that he will ensure that there is a clearer argument about why this is an appropriate subject for legislation at Community level.
I do not accept the general argument expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South but I believe that in areas such as this the Commission must make clear why it is advantageous for legislation to be at a Community level rather than at a national level. There is no doubt that the Commission has failed to do that so far.

4.52 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: We were invited by the Government to take note of the directive. An amendment has been moved which I understand the Government are prepared to accept. I was fascinated by the Minister's speech because he convinced me that

90 per cent. of the directive is a lot of nonsense. I was heartened by that. If this is the Minister's considered view I wonder why we were invited to take note of the directive and why we did not send it back to where is came from and say, "Think again, because you are talking a load of rubbish."
I wish to speak about the mail order catalogue business which is being subjected to the directive by a body of people who do not know what it is all about. The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe which has an extensive mail order catalogue business. In the United Kingdom there are about 4 million agents in this business. In Germany there are about 1 million and in France the number is so small as not to be worth talking about. The rest of Europe does not know what it is all about.
The business has been built up over the years. I am not sure why it comes under the heading of doorstep selling. We all know that these sales are not conducted on the doorstep. They are conducted by mothers who buy goods for their families from a catalogue. They do not invite their friends to talk to them on the doorsteps but they invite them into the kitchen or the drawing room where they decide what they will purchase from the catalogue. That is the way that it works. Our Continental friends do not understand. They have gone to some trouble to issue a directive which affects a business which they do not understand.
Tedious repetition does not consist of one Member saying the same thing over and over again but of several Members saying the same thing. I do not want to tread on the toes of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) by repeating his arguments. That would be tedious repetition, especially as my hon. Friend expressed his arguments so well.
When the question of joining the Europeon Economic Community came before the House I was strongly opposed to it. Eventually, by a substantial majority, the House decided that we should join. Since I am a democrat I accepted the decision of the House. But I must confess that if we get many more directives such as this I shall begin to despair about whether we did the right thing. I hope that we shall not be subjected to any more of these stupid directives which


affect industries that the EEC does not understand.
I am assured that the effect of the directive will be that 790 million additional pieces of paper a year will have to be produced. The trouble these days is that when we talk about millions it is beyond the comprehension of the average hon. Member. I often try to bring home to people what 1 million is. I ask people to consider how many days have passed since the dawn of Christianity. It is nowhere near 1 million.
I should not like my colleagues to think that I am a brilliant mathematician and that I can multiply 365 by 1,978, because I cannot. But I can do simple sums. I can suppose that it is the year 2000—which it is not—and that there are 400 days in the year—which there are not. I can add the noughts on the end, with the assistance of my more talented colleagues, and I can multiply four by two. By that I can show that not nearly 1 million days have passed since the dawn of Christianity.
But today we are being invited to produce 790 million additional pieces of paper a year. I am told that this will cost £20 million. That sum will be added to the cost of the goods which are sold. When we are trying to bring down prices it is stupid that people across the Channel, who do not understand the business, should try to impose this tax upon us.
I could understand if there had been some complaints about catalogue selling. But there have been few complaints. I understand that the numbers of complaints involved in the millions of transactions that take place amount to the devastating figure of 0·8 per cent. What is all the fuss and bother about?
Who has asked for the exemption of agency mail order trading? I am told that the exemption is backed by the National Consumer Council, the EEC consumers' co-ordinating group, the House of Lords EEC Scrutiny Committee and the European Parliament.
I hope that the Government will examine the matter from a United Kingdom point of view and recognise that this is a British industry which was started

in this century and which has developed into a world wide business.
These agents are not hard, commercial operators grinding the faces of the poor. Not at all: they are family people and mothers who try to get orders from their families. Although there are 4 million agents the annual turnover is only about £200 per agent—an insignificant sum. I know that when each agent's turnover is multiplied by 4 million it produces a substantial business but it does not need to be controlled in the way that it would have to be if it were a hard-fisted business operation. It is nothing of the kind. The sooner we tell our friends in the EEC that they should mind their own business about how we should run our business the better it will be for all concerned.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I support my hon. Friend the Minister and Opposition speakers in objecting to these EEC recommendations. I declare straight away a vested interest in this kind of business. It would be unfair of me, after spending 30 years selling insurance on the doorstep, if I did not say that at the present time I enjoy a pension from that work. If I did not say that I should be misleading the House. Having spent 30 years selling insurance on the doorstep, I regard the EEC directive as the brain-child of Brussels bureaucrats who do not understand how we conduct this sort of business in our country.
I want to refer briefly to the insurance industry, to credit traders and to mail order traders. There are branches of this business in our country which have grown up over the last century. It has been a century of honest business, conducted from the doorstep and sometimes by going into people's houses and explaining to them exactly what is involved. In that way a large amount of business has been done.
Anyone who says that in relation to these activities we have not enough regulations, restrictions, and so on, for the protection of the consumer, should examine what we have done in this respect in the last 50 years. Insurance companies, credit traders and mail order traders have been only too anxious to co-operate with various Governments in order to keep their house in order. Their


record of trading with ordinary people over the past century is impeccable.
I hesitate to say this, but when we have an EEC directive such as this, instructing the House of Commons to do certain things concerning this form of trading, it occurs to me that our representatives in Europe—they are not paid, but they receive gross expenses—have not been putting in Europe the point of view of the British people. It seems to me that they have not been telling the European Parliament how we conduct our business in this country.
On numerous occasions in this House there have been suggestions for improving relations between consumers, doorstep sellers and everyone else involved in this sort of business. In view of the fact that we are represented in Europe, it astounds me that the EEC should have produced a directive such as this.

Mr. Tim Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament voted in this matter?

Mr. Perry: The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am of the way in which they voted. He cannot expect me to be any better informed than he is.

Mr. Smith: May I have an answer?

Mr. Perry: This directive from the EEC shows that it does not understand how business is conducted in this country. Indeed, it shows how abysmally ignorant people in Europe are of the way in which we conduct our business. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said, credit trading and mail order business is a matter of trust. People gather together in the drawing room or the kitchen and go over a catalogue and order goods from it. If they do not like the goods they send them back. It is as simple as that. Likewise, when an insurance agent calls upon people and sells insurance, the people concerned can change their minds in the second week and get their money back.
As an ex-doorstep seller, I have no need to say a great deal in telling my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) that the directive should be repudiated from every point of view by the House. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the

Minister has taken his attitude and that the hon. Member for Pudsey had the initiative to speak in the way that he did. I support every effort that is made to show people in Europe that we know how to conduct credit business, insurance business and mail order business in this country. The sooner we reject the directive, the better.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) made a most powerful speech, in the course of which he referred to the attitude of Members of the European Parliament. I have some experience of the directive, both in committee and in the plenary session of the European Parliament. I have spoken and voted against it throughout. Before the hon. Gentleman makes charges of this sort he should realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), for example, and other Conservative Members who voted against it were not joined by members of the Socialist group who, in order to curry favour with consumers, voted in favour of it. This happens over and over again. In this Chamber these directives are objected to by Labour Members, but when they are in Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels. they support them because their European group wishes them to do so.

Mr. John Fraser: Did the consumers realise that their favour was being curried?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Consumers Association has a strong pressure group in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, and it takes some courage to resist it. One is said to be anti-consumer if one raises a point about the legal basis of a document such as this. In the Lobby the other day I was attacked by a commercial agent because I was alleged to be against decent conditions for commercial agents on an equivalent and. I think, equally illegal directive.
It is my purpose to say why I think that the directive is not firmly based on article 100. I am amazed at the obstinacy of the Commission. It is running enormous risks in turning out these directives, ostensibly based on article 100, because one day it will come before the European Court in Luxembourg. It will


not matter whether the European Parliament is an elected or non-elected body, or whether it has adopted the directive. The European Court will construe the legal basis of such directives, quite irrespective of what any European Assembly or European Parliament says, because the latter is not a legislative body.
In this instance there was no evidence whatsoever that the difference in the laws of the different countries, relating to the making of commercial contracts away from business premises, had any direct effect at all on the establishment or functioning of the Common Market. That is the heavy requirement of article 100—not that it may affect or that it indirectly affects but that it in fact directly affects the establishment or functioning of the Common Market.
We asked over and over again for evidence in support of the suggestion, for example, that an unscrupulous trader would scan and scrutinise the variations in consumer protection in the different countries and would then decide to set up shop in some country where consumer protection was less rigid than elsewhere. There is no evidence of it, because no trader has ever worked in that way. It is a fantasy to suppose otherwise.
The only reason why article 100 has been chosen is that no other article could be discovered. That is why it has been chosen. For all the explanations of the Commission and its legal advisers, no one is really convinced that article 100 applies to cases such as this. One day the Commission will come up against the European Court and the whole of its work will be destroyed. I am bound to say that I shall look forward to that day with some relish if the Commission continues in the way that it is proceeding at the moment.
That is really all I wish to say. It is a warning shot to the Commission that if it goes on basing falsely, upon article 100, objectives which may be very desirable in themselves, which may enormously improve the quality of life, and which may do all sorts of good things, but which do not directly affect the functioning of the Common Market—that is to say, do not in a material and substantial way prevent distortions of trade—it will be acting illegally, in the technical sense

of the term, and in the end the court will come up with that opinion.
Greater brains than mine—dare I say it, even than those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who was so kind to me earlier—are very exercised on this matter. It is no secret that their lordships in another place will shortly debate the whole application of article 100 as it affects directives of this sort. It behoves us all, particularly the Government, who have already moved quite a long way today, to let the Commission know that it is really a great waste of time for the Parliament, the Commission, the Government and everyone else to have to plough through these directives, and to get outvoted time and time again by very well-intentioned people who want to improve the quality of life but who will not, or cannot, see that they are illegal.

Mr. Perry: I withdraw any remarks about our members of the Commission in Europe. I am glad to hear that at times they have opposed this measure. I am thankful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There could be no handsomer or fairer withdrawal than that. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On that happy note, struck between the two Front Benches, and on the harmony in no way made discordant by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I think that I might sit down.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am struck by the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the EEC Commission is bringing forward what he regards as illegal directives and is, in fact, acting contrary to the law and to the Treaty of Rome. If that is happening, it is a serious matter which this House ought soon to debate, quite apart from the directive before us today.
I have also read the report of the House of Lords Scrutiny Committee which seems to raise serious doubt whether or not many directives that are coming forward are contrary to article 100 of the Treaty. If the EEC Commission is not merely wasting, or at any rate spending, a great deal of public money, and is


not merely employing a large number of people and acting in some ways—for instance, with regard to fisheries—contrary to the interests of this country, but in addition is in breach of its own law and its own treaty, the sooner we debate these constitutional matters the better. I hope that the Government will take note of that.
I want to address one brief question to the Minister. As I understand him, he does not merely think that there are a number of undesirable, unacceptable and—I think he said—unworkable provisions in this directive; he thinks that there was no good reason for the EEC Commission's intruding in the matter of doorstep selling at all, partly for the reason that it did not affect intra-Community trade. If the Minister thinks that the whole subject is unsuitable for EEC legislation, it would seem to follow that not merely should this directive be amended or improved but that we should have no EEC directive or legislation at all in this sphere. Surely that is the obvious and inescapable conclusion from the Minister's view that this is not a proper subject for EEC legislation, whether or not it is legal under article 100.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that he will oppose any EEC directive or other legislation on this issue. If he is not willing to do so, even though he says that it is not a suitable or appropriate subject for such legislation, will he explain why that conclusion does not follow from the opinion which he himself has expressed?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Are not the right hon. Gentleman's two points interrelated? Is not the applicability of article 100 connected with the effect of intra-Community trade, or what is called in terms of article 100 "the functioning" of the Common Market? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a unique case, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) indicated. Perhaps he will accept that these draft directives are under scrutiny in the Legal Committee of the European Parliament, specifically with regard to the applicability of article 100. For example, I hope that next week we shall continue our discussion on the applicability of article 100 in relation to

a still more important directive, the draft directive on liability for defective products.

Mr. Jay: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that information. I would be disposed to agree that the two matters are interrelated. I am also glad to hear that they are under scrutiny somewhere. If they are interrelated, I hope that that justifies my having mentioned both of them in one brief speech, but surely it may well be that there is an objection to this directive under both heads at once.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I start by declaring an interest. I work for a large mail order company and I am vice-chairman of the all-party retail trade group, of which the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) is chairman.
I should like to make one comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that he saw a dichotomy in the speeches both of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). I am hound to confess that, after listening to many of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, I feel that he will always trod dichotomies unless we make speeches with which he agrees or which he has written with his well-known clarity of expression and choice of phrase. So be it. Most of us would accept that charge with equanimity.
I should like to describe this draft directive in racing terms as "stupidity by arrogance out of ignorance'.

Mr. Ben Ford: It is a non-starter.

Mr. Finsberg: Indeed, as the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) says, it is a non-starter. It is the brainchild, or, more likely, the brainstorm, of Commissioner Burke, an aptly named gentleman. He displays utter ignorance of the way in which British catalogue mail order trading operates. I should like to read a letter from Commissioner Burke which was sent to Mr. Rampton, chairman of the Mail Order Traders Association. It is dated 13th February 1978:
Dear Mr. Rampton,
Thank you for your letter of 24th January last, and your kind invitation to visit either your Company or G.U.S.


Unfortunately, I am fully booked up until well into the Autumn and must therefore regretfully decline.
It is a one-hour flight from Brussels to London or Manchester. Indeed, because of the vagaries of British summer time. Commissioner Burke need not lose any time if he comes at the right time of the year. No British Minister would have the effrontery to write to a reputable organisation in that way. I can only conclude that Mr. Burke merely signed a letter put before him by some of his minions in the Commission.

Mr. MeCrindle: Is not my hon. Friend rather understating the case of the difficulty which would attend any visit from Brussels to this country? Is it not correct to say that if Mr. Burke gets the right flight at the right time of year he will arrive before he left?

Mr. Finsberg: He would be rather like the well-known bird which flies backwards. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The trouble is that Commissioner Burke will not fly. How one can be a Commissioner and not fly I have not yet understood.
I shall not call this the behaviour of the Commission, because there are some intelligent Commissioners, who produce sensible ideas for directives. But the idea of Commissioner Burke really is stupid. What it does is give encouragement to the enemies of the concept of Europe and make those of us, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and myself, wonder whether we did the right thing in voting for accession. Being a democrat, I accepted the view of the House and, more important, the view of the referendum. As far as I am concerned the matter rests there. But this sort of action only fuels the flames of those who will not accept democratic decisions.

Mr. Jay: If Commissioner Burke really deserves this kind of language, is it not a rather serious criticism of the EEC that it should have placed him in this highly responsible position?

Mr. Finsberg: I gather that Commissioner Burke has more than one portfolio. If, as I gather, one of his portfolios may mean giving us money to build a Channel Tunnel, I shall merely

confine my comments to his ability on consumer affairs and this directive.
The Minister has given sympathetic support for the views expressed to him about doorstep selling. The hon. Member for Farnworth and I took a deputation to see the Minister, who was completely frank and extremely helpful. He said then what he said today. I am glad that he has now publicly repudiated this directive.
I shall remind the House of the answer given in another place by Lord Oram, who was asked about some problems that would affect catalogue mail order trading. He said:
The Government appreciate the difficulties which would be created for catalogue mail order trading companies if the draft Directive on contracts negotiated away from business premises were to be applied in its present form, and they have no wish to subscribe to a proposal which would create unnecessary problems without at the same time offering corresponding benefits to consumers. The United Kingdom approach to this proposal will be conditioned by these considerations as well as by the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th February 1978; Vol. 388, c. 1240.]
The Minister was perfectly right to bring the draft directive to the House so that he could be reinforced when the House threw it out. This must make his task much easier when talking to Commissioner Burke. He will be able to tell him that he put the directive to the British Parliament and the British Parliament said "In no way will we accept this."
No other country has the same sort of catalogue mail order trading on anything like the same scale as we have here. It is right to understand how this type of trading works. There are misconceptions about it. The British Press, for example, frequently talks about mail order when really it means the stupid advertisement squares in the national newspapers. There are clearly not anything like the same safeguards with those squares. Catalogue mail order trading means that all goods can be returned without charge or question. There is an unconditional guarantee of quality, and no payments are made until the goods are accepted. Credit terms, where applicable, are known in advance and in a vast number of cases there is, in fact, no charge for instalment payments.
If the terms of this directive had been adopted there would be 800 million extra pieces of paper—bits of confetti. As the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) said, the costs would fall on the consumer. In fact, the costs are quite large and should not be overlooked. It is estimated that there would be £35 million of capital expenditure and £20 million of revenue expenditure, all to he paid for by the ultimate customer. I do not believe that even Commissioner Burke imagined that this could happen. The vast majority of agents are part-time workers—housewives and similar people—who would not want to be burdened in this way.
Who is in favour of this draft directive, other than Commissioner Burke and his minions? I can find virtually nobody. What is more significant is the long and impressive list of organisations which are against the directive and which support the exclusion of agency mail order. I ask the Minister a question specifically on exclusion. In the past he has said that lie does not favour the idea of exclusion, but lie went on to say today that insurance should be outside the directive. Surely that would be a precedent to the exclusion of agency mail order. It means that there can be no objection in principle to excluding a particular trade. Did the Minister really mean the two things that he said—that insurance should be outside the directive, but that he did not see how mail order could be? I hope that the Minister will answer that when he replies to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East spoke about the number of complaints—0·8 per cent. That should be viewed against about 600,000 daily transactions. It is also worth noting that many Members of this House get the monthly document from the Advertising Standards Authority, which lists the complaints that come to it from consumers. It is a very rare event to find any catalogue mail order trader in that list. Lots of mail order traders are there, but they are not catalogue mail order traders. They are people who advertise in the newspaper squares. Therefore, there is a case made out very clearly for the exclusion of catalogue mail order traders.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will want to know the views of the House again if we were

presented with an amended directive. Perhaps he will go further and say quite firmly that he does not see any need for any directive on this subject. He could say that we can safely leave it to the national Parliament to deal with this problem. If he is not prepared to say that, will he at least say that if a further directive is forced on him—and I do not see how that can happen—the House will have a further opportunity of consigning that directive to the same waste paper basket as I hope we shall consign this one?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: On the question of force, my hon. Friend will have in mind that article 100, if it is applicable in the context of this directive, requires unanimity.

Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I was going on to say that "force" might also be construed as part of a package deal. I want an assurance on this as well. It is not unknown for there to be a certain "trade-off" or, as the Minister said, "switch selling" on the doorstep. I do not want to see a switch sell which would give, for example, the Minister of Agriculture everything that he wants on fishing at the cost of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection accepting a directive on doorstep selling. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will say "No" completely, and even if it is part of a package deal, he and his Department will take the same robust view, say "No" and next time recommend No" to this House.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Jim Spicer: At the outset I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for his intervention and the way in which he set the record straight about the European Assembly. I also point out to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) that we face a problem in dealing with consumer affairs in the European Assembly and in its committees.
I am on the Public Health, Environment and Consumer Affairs Committee, and I can say that it is absolutely true that those of us who try to bring reason into the whole approach to consumer affairs are all too often labelled "anti-consumer". Nothing could be further


from the truth. However, there is this very strong lobby in Europe and in this country which believes that the consumer is a god towering above us all and that we must all bow down before it. But, unfortunately, that god has feet of clay and therefore we—who 'we" might be in this context, I am not sure—must decide for the consumer. We must push through things and drive through ideas that have no relevance to the consumer. If he knew about them he would say that he wanted nothing to do with such nonsense.
Time and again in the European Assembly and in the committee there one finds the Socialist group consumer-oriented in that way. I believe that is a great pity. We should be dealing with what is right for the consumer and not with what we think is right for the consumer.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of a train of events. It is true that in this draft directive there has been a train of events which brings the House to a situation which we have not seen before. In other words, we are not "taking note"; we are virtually rejecting a draft directive.
I was appointed rapporteur in the Public Health and Environment Committee on this draft directive. I spent a long time on this matter and in this country I spoke to mail order traders and representatives of insurance companies, who gave me their views and opinions. As a result of those consultations, I included a series of amendments in my report on the draft directive. When the matter came before the European Assembly on 13th September, some of those amendments were carried. However, the key amendment that I put forward—an amendment that had the full support of that Assembly—was that we should exclude mail order trading from the scope of this directive.
The door was open for Commissioner Burke at that point to accept that amendment. Had he done so, the train of events would not quite have moved in the way it has. When the Commissioner said "No, this will remain in the draft directive or in a future directive", I made it clear that I would do all in my power to bring the matter back to the Floor of this

House so that we could reject the whole directive.
I heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen in the Assembly on that occasion, when he dealt with the effect of article 100. That article was not a proper vehicle. Therefore, from having been a rapporteur who sought to guide consideration of the directive in a sensible way, I found myself increasingly convinced that there was no reason for a directive at all.
I am slightly puzzled because the Minister, having said he did not like the directive, said that if it were to be redrafted it would include within its scope mail order trading. He implied that another directive was about to emerge. However, that does not accord with the temper of the House today, and I am certain that the Minister must be aware of that fact.
It is high time that we fired a warning shot across the bows of some of the people in Brussels. Despite the opportunity afforded to them to produce sensible directives, directives such as this one keep emerging. People in the various directorates are working on them but are ignoring the advice that we give them. If they continue to ignore that advice, sooner or later they must realise that we in this House will not accept directives, and they will fall.
I am delighted that the Government have accepted our amendment. I hope that we shall go further and say quite firmly that we do not wish to see another draft directive coming forward. Enough time has been wasted on this directive. This is the time to consign it to the wastepaper basket, where it rightly belongs.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Most hon. Members who have contributed to the debate so far have tended to take a broad-brush approach. I wish to do the reverse and to concentrate on only one aspect of the draft directives in so far as they relate to insurance.
I wish to refer to the effect on insurance of some of the proposed provisions of document R/134/78. This is a revision of the orginal draft, but I contend that in so far as it relates to the transaction of insurance business away from


commercial premises it is, if anything, substantially worse in its implications and in its threats than was the original directive.
I wish to concentrate on three articles of the revised directive namely, 2(e), 4 and 9. Will the Minister confirm the indications which have reached me from the Department of Trade to the effect that, even if this directive were to go forward, it is not intended that it should embrace insurance, but that if a directive were felt to be necessary, a separate directive for that purpose would be forthcoming? If the Minister can confirm that indication it will relieve some of my anxieties. I believe that the revised directive attempts to be more lenient in its recommendations in protecting the consumer generally and, if anything, makes it more difficult for the insurance consumer.
I should declare an interest, in that I act as parliamentary consultant to the British Insurance Brokers Association. However, it is not only insurance brokers but representatives of insurance companies, engaged in what has come to be called pejoratively "doorstep selling", who are concerned about the effect of this directive. They are concerned and perplexed because they feel, especially the insurance brokers, that only a year ago domestic legislation went through this House which strictly defined an insurance broker and imposed considerable penalties in terms of his continued ability to trade as an insurance broker if he overstepped the requirements laid down in that legislation. In other words, the legislation on insurance brokers and the Insurance Companies Act 1974 relating to insurance companies laid down standards to which the vast majority of insurance people conform. If they do not conform, the penalties are considerable.
I turn to the three articles which give me cause for concern—and this would apply whether we were dealing with this directive or a separate directive on insurance. Article 4 of the revised directive reads:
The provision that a copy of the contract may be forwarded to the consumer immediately after it is signed, is removed. The effect is that the consumer must be given a copy of the contract when it is signed.
I do not know whether it is widely known to the House, but the proposal form in

an insurance transaction forms the basis of the contract. In completing the proposal form on the doorstep, an application is being made to an insurer to provide a policy which, if accepted, is issued as a policy and is produced as the contract.
It will be evident that it is quite impossible for the contract, which in this case is the policy, or even a copy of the policy, to be handed over when the doorstep sale is being transacted. The premium must be paid before the contract can be given because the contract, that is to say, the policy, is the receipt for the premium.
Elsewhere in the directive, however, we are not to be allowed to accept the premium until the end of a particular period. The Commission cannot have it both ways. This is indicative of the muddled thinking which is coming forth from Brussels on this matter.
I turn now to article 9 which reads:
The trader is now not only forbidden to require full or partial payment during the cooling-off period but also to accept such payment if offered".
Just suppose that there is a requirement for some sort of life assurance cover to be provided immediately. Let us suppose that the acceptance of a life assurance policy is the basis upon which one may take up a new position. As I read the suggestion here, the insurance company is prevented from accepting it and the proposed insured is prevented from offering it. I suggest that that is not protection of the consumer's rights; it is an interference with the consumer's freedom.
Finally, I turn to article 2(e), because I want clarification from the Minister, although I say in advance that it may not be possible for this sort of clarification to be forthcoming by the time the Minister replies to the debate. The article reads:
The figure below which the controls in the directive will not apply is reduced
and the figures given are, effectively, from £17 to £10.
As it applies to life assurance policies, is that figure of £10, or any other figure that may ultimately replace it, to be taken as the annual premium or, as most people now pay, a monthly premium for life assurance? This is important, because whether or not the protection will exist will to some extent depend upon the level


of premium. This a technical matter, sufficiently technical for the Minister to wish to consult his colleagues at the Department of Trade. Sooner or later, however, we should have a better indication of what it means for life assurance policies.
From the point of view of insurance I urge the Minister not to accept the draft directive—an approach that we are told he is prepared to adopt—and, if something vaguely similar is created in its place, that he should strongly resist even the temporary involvement of insurance in such a directive for the reasons I have suggested.
I believe that the insurance authorities in this country recognise only too well their responsibility to protect the public from an unscrupulous doorstep trader, but I do not believe that they should be prepared or expected to cosset the individual prospective policyholder and, in the process, to insult his intelligence.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I must declare an interest in the subject that we are discussing, since I am a director of a company which is very active in direct selling. I do not, however, rise as a spokesman for that section of British industry, nor is it on that account that I am particularly glad to have heard the Minister's robust denunciation of the directive and the echoes that have come from every corner of the Chamber on precisely the same theme.
It seems that one of the most important points that needs to be registered is that there are matters that are much better left to be protected by British consumer interests, and we have today clearly identified one such. I put it to the Minister, however, that a rather unattractive light must have been shed upon the machinery for the representation and protection of the British consumer within the European system. I am not criticising the Minister's officials. So far as I know they have been assiduous throughout in trying to put forward the various points of view put to them by the interests that would be affected by the directive.
I am more concerned about the absence of any part played by the consumer association-type representatives from this

country. As I understand it, the directive, as part of its gestation process, has gone through a body which acts as a consumer consultative committee and which exists under the aegis of the Commission. I believe that there is a body called the European Consumer Union, and that that is represented on the consultative committee. I believe, too, that this country is represented on the European Consumer Union.
The more I hear about what has happened in that area the more disturbed I have become. I am most disturbed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) said. I was disturbed to hear that when the consultative committee was invited to give an opinion on the draft directive, that opinion was written by the Danish member. That scarcely indicates that it is likely to be biased in anything except towards the slavish extension of Danish law, which is extremely restrictive in this area. Even more disturbing was the fact that, so far as I know, no dissenting opinion was entered by the British representatives on that committee to the effect that the proposals would not be accepted by the British consumer and that the whole thing was a waste of time.
It is extraordinary if that is an accurate account of what happened. It is extraordinary that no voice of warning was raised by our consumer representatives. Surely that is part of their function. Unless and until there is such a person as a European consumer, the various interests of the various different consumers might as well be spoken for, and the consultative Committee seems to be the forum in which the view of British consumers should be put forward.
My hon. Friend brought home another point to me. There has been a good deal of trading off in the European lobby. I dare say there is a great deal of back-scratching, whereby some Members undertake to keep quiet about someone else's hobby-horse, in turn for tacit or vocal support for their own. I wonder whether we are fully aware of the end-result that may flow from this. As I understand it, the consumer consultative committee is interesting itself among other things, the banning of all television advertising. I understand that there is a strong lobby in the same circle to press for the total banning of smoking in


public places. Neither of those issues seems to me to have any great connection with non-tariff barriers. I should be glad to enlist anyone's support to stop Labour Members smoking in the Division Lobby but I do not say that that is a suitable subject for an EEC directive.

Mr. McCrindle: How does my hon. Friend know what Labour Members do in the Division Lobby?

Mr. Onslow: I sometimes find myself in a Division Lobby with Labour Members, and I can distinguish between those who smoke and those who do not, and between those with whom I normally vote and those with whom I do not.
I do not know in what respect these two objectives have any consumer support. There may be some who favour the banning of television advertising. There may be a growing preponderance of opinion against smoking in public places, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. There is another example— the ending of all duty-free concessions on tobacco. This is a matter in which the European Consumer Union and the consumer consultative committee are actively interesting themselves. What do these busybodies think they are about? What possible bearing have these pees in their bonnets upon the proper functioning of the European Community?
As hon. Members on both sides have said, they are succeeding only in bringing the Community into disrepute, and the sooner they are clearly told to drop it the better. If they resent being told to drop it, I suggest that they be invited to resign, so that they may pursue their predilections elsewhere. There seems to be no reason why they should be expensively maintained within the fabric of the European Community to pursue objectives which, by no possible stretch of imagination, can be said to be supported or widely desired by consumers in Europe as a whole or in most of the individual countries. I hope that that lesson will be driven firmly home as a result of this debate.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): I rise briefly to draw attention to the fact that the draft directive does not appear to take into account the highly specialised home improvement equipment which is

produced in the glass industry—for example, double glazing. Whereas the door-to-door salesman specialises in selling mass produced articles, double glazing is a home improvement product of high value which brings the salesman and the craftsman to the home of the would-be purchaser to measure up and to get all details of the building before a sale can be effected. Will this draft directive include such valuable items as-double glazing? If so, I assure the Minister that most of his hon. Friends will take every available step to throw it out.

Mr. John Fraser: The directive does-not distinguish between products. In the example that my hon. Friend has given, if the salesman comes to the consumer's house without any prior knowledge of or invitation from the consumer, makes oral representations, and gets him to sign a double glazing agreement there and then, the directive would apply. Indeed, our Consumer Credit Act would apply. If, on the other hand, the consumer, by answering an advertisement, invites a salesman or service firm to come into his home to measure up and provide the service, he will not be affected by the directive. It is the difference in approach, not the product.

Mr. Spriggs: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. But it appears that the Commission does not appreciate the difference between the direct selling of mass produced articles and articles of very high value, such as double glazing. If the directive intends to exempt high value articles, it is up to the Commission to make clear which items are to be exempted.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Tim Smith: This has been a most interesting and in many ways significant debate. Its implications go far beyond the limited ambit of the proposed directive to protect the consumer against contracts negotiated away from business premises.
I think that the determining factor should be not, as has been suggested by some speakers, whether consumer protection is a valid matter to be considered by the Commission, but whether the proposal in any way impinges on fair competition. The aim and object of the


Community should be to ensure that conditions in all member States are such that enterprises are able to compete on a fair and equal basis. That may in practice mean that consumer protection regulations and laws in one member State will have to accord with those in another.
For example, the proposal to try to introduce a directive on product liability is important, because insuring for product liability is a high overhead in many industries. This proposal from the Commission might mean a large increase in insurance costs throughout the Community. The point is that there should be equal application to each member State and enterprise.
If this directive were introduced throughout the Community, that would not necessarily be the case, because, as has been pointed out, it is restrictive. The directive does not place upon any member State an obligation to permit the kind of activities to which it is related. There is no positive requirement to allow doorstep selling or any of the other activities mentioned. Therefore, even if it can be argued that it is relevant to fair competition, possibly a de minimis rule should apply.
The directive refers to approximately 100 units of account, which I understand is worth about £17. The Consumer Credit Act does not apply until the figure of £50 is reached. The Minister said, on the one hand that the scope of the directive was diffuse and unclear and, on the other, that the documentation was bureaucratic. Those two statements may not be inconsistent. However, it is important in a directive of this kind that the terminology and definitions should be clear. Otherwise, there will be doubt about the scope of its application. That fact has been clearly evidenced in the debate, because a number of questions have been asked about the application of the directive.
I should like to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). In pointing out how significant the debate was he said that when, in a year or two years, we have a directly elected European Parliament, perhaps the attitude of the directly elected Members would differ and that the manner in which the decisions of the Parliament were treated would differ.
We have been told that when this matter was discussed in the European Parliament last September, at least Conservative Members voted against it, but not Labour Members. Surely, if there were a directly elected European Parliament, it would be open to directly elected representatives of the United Kingdom to vote against such a proposal, and no doubt they would, because they would probably be more in touch with their constituents on EEC matters, as they would be concerned only with EEC matters, than Members of Parliament here. Even if that were not so, there would appear to be no reason why, in theory, the Council of Ministers should not have the ultimate right of veto.

Mr. Powell: The point is that a directly elected Parliament elected by the electorate of the entire Community confers upon the majority decision a significance which cannot attach to the majority decision of an Assembly composed of deputations from the respective Parliaments.

Mr. Smith: I accept that point. The right hon. Gentleman knows that some of us are a little less concerned than he is about a loss of sovereignty by the United Kingdom.
The main point about a directive of this nature, which would result in 790 million pieces of paper per annum being generated—no doubt other horrifying statistics will emerge—is that it damages the reputation of the European Community, brings the Common Market generally into disrepute and gives no assistance to those of us who believe that British membership of the EEC will in the long run be beneficial. So on an occasion like this it behoves us all to make our position clear—that we reject this directive.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Perhaps I may briefly make some observations from the Opposition Benches. The opinions expressed are extremely clear. The House as a whole will have no truck with this directive or what it contains. There is an additional point. There is a genuine view that doorstep selling should not be a matter to be controlled by means of an EEC directive. I share that view.
I think that we all recognise that there are other ways of handling this matter.


What we require are firm commitments. We require from the Minister a firm commitment to accept the view of the House, so clearly expressed, and to convey in these next months in his discussions with Brussels the view that the House will not accept directives of this kind. He should equally, perhaps, undertake a commitment that if there is a major consumer abuse in doorstep selling the Government may seek to remedy it by the means which are already largely at their disposal.
One of our important features in handling consumer protection in this country is that we have evolved a sensitive mechanism that has stood the test of time. The Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Credit Act are important vehicles for consumer protection which, in my judgment and that of many consumer organisations, have provided a level of consumer protection vastly superior to much that applies in other member States. We must be clear that if we seek to extend the role of protection of the consumer to doorstep sales activity, we have adequate vehicles of our own which we can adapt for the purpose.
The matter of doorstep selling arose as long ago as 1962 in the report of the Molony Committee, so it is not for want of time in realising that we have a problem which should be dealt with. It could be that in the Private Member's Bill which came before the House in 1966, and which suggested identification marks for doorstep salesmen, there are certain proposals which could be taken further. These have had some approval by some consumer organisations. But it is clear from the debate that the House does not believe that directives of this kind have a useful part to play in what is after all a very small level of commercial activity even if it does undoubtedly bring hardship and ill will to a number of consumers.
I recognise the challenge made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—that here we are, united perhaps in agreeing to rebuff the Community very firmly on the matter of a directive. I think that that is a very healthy thing for this House to do. I believe that it will strengthen the feeling that the Community cannot get its way totally on every matter on which it seeks to issue a directive.
When we call in aid the chairman of the committee of the European Assembly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), when we read the discussions that took place in the European Assembly and the comments made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and when we note the comments of our own Select Committee and of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). who chaired it, and of the Select Committee in the House of Lords and the debate that took place there, there can be no question but that we are all united in saying that such directives have no part to play in dealing with the problem that exists, and that there are other and more effective ways of dealing with it within the framework of normal United Kingdom legislative and administrative action.
It is in that spirit that the Minister should report back to his colleagues in the Community that as far as we are concerned we shall be able to handle this matter in a different way, and deal with the consumer problem that we know exists.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I may not be popular in doing so, but I should begin with a short defence of Mr. Commissioner Burke. I do so because Mr. Burke was appointed some time after this draft directive was produced. It is not his brainchild. He was not responsible for preparing it. One should say this in all fairness, because he has been the target for attack by more than one hon. Member and it is right, since he cannot speak for himself, that I should say something in his defence.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: But Mr. Burke was Commissioner when the revised draft came, so he has to accept that responsibility.

Mr. Fraser: These things have a momentum of their own. I do not know whether one can say that Mr. Burke was able to resist it.
I can tell the House that I have spoken very bluntly to Mr. Burke about this directive and other directives of the same ilk. For instance, there is a directive, which the House may discuss in due course, which deals, inter alia, with the unit pricing of bananas, turnips, spring


onions and a whole range of goods. I have made it absolutely plain that I do not regard that as an area of Community competence by judgment—I shall deal with the vires of the matter in a moment —and, indeed, that it could actually have the effect of preventing us from doing now those things which we judge ought to be done now according to our own national judgment, because we would have to wait for a Community directive to be agreed by the member States.
Earlier, I listed a number of objections to the scope and content of the draft. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) added deposits. I agree with him. It is a point that I should have mentioned. I have also made it clear that I do not want to see insurance included within the scope of this directive, partly because insurance is sui generis.
When we passed the Unfair Contract Terms Act, we agreed that insurance contracts are a thing on their own needing separate treatment. For that reason I escape all the other detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. But even if I were not able to escape, I do not think that I would be able to answer them from the precision of the directive at the moment—for example, whether it is a £10 premium monthly or weekly or per annum, I do not know. But I think that insurance should be excluded from it.
The main case that is put to me is that catalogue mail order selling should be excluded if any form of directive is agreed. I answer that not by asking whether catalogue mail order traders should be excluded altogether but by asking another question—how will it affect them and to what extent should any directive affect them?
My answer, as I said earlier, is that I do not believe that they should be affected any more than they would otherwise be affected by the Consumer Credit Act. No one has ever argued that catalogue mail order trading should be totally excluded from our own domestic controls. Indeed, the practice of catalogue mail order traders is followed by the Consumer Credit Act, in the sense that their own good practice is the sort of thing that brought the Act to us. Therefore, they must be amenable, and would not resist

being amenable, to some form of control. So long as that form of control is no more onerous than that likely to be imposed on them by the Consumer Credit Act, I see no reason why they should not be subject to the draft directive.

Mr. Jim Spicer: I think that there is an area of confusion here. It is quite impossible to have the mail order traders within the scope of the directive, and subject to all its provisions, without at the same time imposing on them all the additional paper work and additional cost which, as has been made clear to all of us, lie within the directive at the moment. If one does not want the directive to apply to them at all and does not want to impose any burden, why on earth should they not be excluded? I take back not a word of what I have said about the whole directive, but as we are arguing on it as it stands now, I cannot see the logic of continuing to retain these traders within the scope of the directive.

Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I may finish what I have to say in my own way. I think that I shall be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not want to see these traders subject to any more onerous obligations than the Consumer Credit Act would impose, together with obligations in respect of cash transactions, for which we have no legislation at the moment but obligations which I would intend to impose, with the agreement of the House, and which should be analogous to those imposed on credit sales negotiated away from business premises. To that I think that they ought to be amenable.
But I say to the House that if that is not possible to achieve by negotiation and by agreement with the Commission and with our partners in the Community, I shall most certainly resist to the last any provision to include them in the directive, and I shall then support the suggested amendment passed by the European Assembly. I hope that that gives sufficient assurance on the point. They should not be affected.
A good deal of argument has ranged around the question whether the directive is ultra vires—unconstitutional. I have not tried to deal with article 100, firstly, because I find that legislatic arguments about competence can sometimes


be rather unproductive; secondly, because it is not a matter for me to judge whether the directive is or could be unconstitutional; and, thirdly, because if the Commission did not choose article 100, it is always open to it to choose article 235.
Indeed, when I dealt with a previous directive in the Council of Ministers, I suggested, since I did not want article 100 in that case to be a precedent, that those who thought that article 100 was appropriate might care to have a recital to that effect, and others who thought that article 235 was appropriate might have a recital to that effect, and we would finish up rather like the appointment of an English trustee under a trust deed, which mentions the powers under the Trustee Act 1925, and always adds
and all such other powers entitling us so to do.
But I did not want to engage in that argument about article 100, because I do not think that I am in a position to reply on the matter, which probably requires a debate of its own.
What I did say—and I stick to these words—is that on my judgment about whether there is competence under article 100, as a matter of judgment, I believe that it is inappropriate for the Commission to engage upon this sort of exercise and others of which I have given examples—the unit pricing directive, for example.

Mr. Giles Shaw: On that specific point, the Minister has heard the views of the House that we do not consider that this is a suitable matter to be handled by an EEC directive. What is his view about that? Will he now take the point that there may not any longer be a need to have an EEC directive in this area but that member States could—and we certainly could—handle the problem by other means?

Mr. Fraser: I have made it plain for some time to the Commission that I do not regard it as being an appropriate area for intervention. I hope that in considering its future work in the field of consumer protection, the Community will distinguish between an area where there is a need for harmonisation, such as consumer safety, and those more general policy issues, such as doorstep selling, where a harmonised approach is

neither necessary nor appropriate, but where, perhaps, the exchange of information on similar problems could be of value—but not in the form of a directive —and there may also be a need—I say "there may be"; there probably almost certainly is—for more thorough preparation of Community proposals. I commend to the Commission again—I have done it in the past—the Green Paper approach which this country has, which I think ought increasingly to be adopted by the Community.

Mr. Jay: But if it is my hon. Friend's view—I think that he has now said it three times—that this is an inappropriate area for EEC legislation, will he not say, quite simply, that he will oppose the issue of any directive whatever on this subject?

Mr. Fraser: I am coming to that matter. It is not as easy as my right hon. Friend makes out. If the Council of Ministers or the Community had a Second Reading procedure for directives there would be a point at which the principle of the directive was discussed at a very early stage, and where it could be thrown out altogether. But that is not the way in which these matters proceed.
I was asked to give examples of cases where harmonisation on consumer protection was appropriate, and I can give some. Unfortunately, the Community has often been far too slow, but I believe that there is a great deal of advantage to our industry, particularly to the food industry, and an advantage to consumers, if we can start to agree a range of prescribed quantities which are applicable throughout the whole of the Community, because that gives an ease of trade for producers and gives a certainty to consumers in that they are able to compare one pack with another. That is appropriate. Unfortunately, the preparation of prescribed quantity schedules in the draft directive has taken so long that, once again, I am in a situation in which I would have made prescribed quantity orders some time ago but for the fact that we were still negotiating in the Community.
I have already mentioned safety. There is a great need to have, let us say, the same safety standard for toys, agreed by members of the Community, operating throughout Europe. In that way, consumers are protected by having an


adequate safety standard, and the producers of toys—we export many toys from this country and many are produced in other parts of Europe—have a certainty of being able to sell to a large market without unnecessary and restrictive barriers against trade.
Another useful area for harmonisation is the labelling of dangerous products, which, at the same time, protects consumers and can protect workers as well.
We are producers of cosmetics, and soon I hope to lay cosmetic regulations under the European Communities Act. That is an appropriate area for harmonisation.
I happen to think that product liability is a useful area for harmonisation and advance throughout the Community, though many people may disagree with me. That is something that we shall have to debate on another occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asks whether I will oppose all inappropriate directives. In a sense, yes, I will. In a sense, I have already done so. I have not always been to the Commission. The Commission has sometimes come to me. But I have done so by saying quite clearly to the Commission that I regard certain areas as being inappropriate, as being a waste of my civil servants' time and a waste of the time of civil servants in other parts of the Community. I have not only pursued that with the Commission. I have pursued it by visits to both of the other new entrant States. So I am prepared to oppose to that degree.
But, as I say, there is not a Second Reading procedure. What happens is that the draft directive makes its way along, usually by discussion by officials. When it reaches its final form it may be quite innocuous for this country. For instance, if the directive on doorstep selling requires us to do nothing on credit sales because we have already done it a long time ago, and if it requires us to do something about cash sales which we would have done in any case, one is not going to oppose it at that point, because no harm is done.
There may be other circumstances in which a directive comes up to the point of agreement and it may be inappropriate, though it may be innocuous for us and

require us to do nothing, but it may be that three, four or five other member States do want certain things to be harmonised, and there is no point in our standing in their way as long as our own traders and consumers and our system do not suffer by it.

Mr. Jay: Surely the Minister is not now telling us that there is no stage at which the British representative on the Council can oppose an individual directive?

Mr. Fraser: Of course he can oppose an individual directive, but because directives tend to go into a committee stage before there is a discussion in principle, the opportunity does not always arise.
I am not trying to dodge the matter. What I have said to Commissioner Burke and to the other members of the Corn-mission is that I do not like a system in which reaching a point of decision is long delayed. What I have suggested on these consumer matters, many of which I consider to be inappropriate, is that there ought, at an early stage, to be a meeting of Ministers, who would then be able to decide at a political level, very early on, whether they collectively thought that these matters were right for Community intervention.
If we can get that sort of discussion going—I am talking only about that field for which I am personally responsible, the consumer field—and if we can approach the matter in that way, it would be rather more productive. The Commission would be acquainted with the political views of member States at a much earlier stage. I think it fair to say that the views that I have expressed in the House today are not out of accord with the views of the two other new entrant member States, with whose Consumer Ministers I have taken the opportunity of discussing these matters.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like the Minister to reflect on what he has said, because he has been eloquently and most helpfully saying that there are areas which he considers inappropriate. But he qualified that by saying that because some of the directives may be innocuous, we can let that go by. Surely he must accept that there is a principle. If the directive is inappropriate, he ought to resist it, whether or not our legislation


covers it completely, otherwise he really is perpetuating a nonsense, and in order to prove that we have got to do nothing his civil servants, as he said, have got work to do. I ask him to reflect again and to decide really that if it is inappropriate it is out, and not that because it is inappropriate but innocuous he can allow it to come in.

Mr. Fraser: Even if I wholly agreed with that point of view, the opportunity for stopping a directive in its tracks does not always exist in the early stages. This is one of the difficulties. The best way for me to respond is to try to create a situation where there is a ministerial discussion of these matters at an early stage, where if one felt strongly about the inappropriateness of a directive one could make known that point of view, but I am afraid a difficulty is that the opportunity does not always arise.
I am grateful for the views which the House has expressed, which I believe largely reflect the views which I put in my opening speech, but that does not make the debate in any may superfluous, it makes it extremely useful, because now those views, which I have represented privately but cogently, are very much reflected by the views which have been expressed in the debate. That will be of considerable assistance to myself and those of my advisers who have to nego-

tiate the details of these matters in Brussels.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister touch on consumer representation and try to get a message through to them on that, also?

Mr. Fraser: I have enough problems answering for myself and the Government. I am not going to put myself in the position of trying to explain how a welter of other consultative bodies, the European Parliament, and the rest behave themselves. That is a matter for them, not for me.
I conclude by saying that I am grateful for the views expressed by the House. There has been a large degree of unanimity. The content of this directive must be substantially and fairly fundamentally changed and I will certainly seek every opportunity to keep the House informed of the progress on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of EEC Documents Nos. R/113/77 and R/134/78 on Contracts negotiated away from Business Premises but does not consider that they are an acceptable basis for legislation in the United Kingdom, and urges the Government to secure their withdrawal.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AERONAUTICAL SECTOR)

6.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EEC Documents Nos. R/2461/75, R/1860/76, R/222/77 and R/1964/77 on the Aeronautical Sector.
The motion before the House follows a previous debate on 23rd January. The previous motion concentrated on developments in the civil aeronautical sector, and aroused concern among hon. Members as precluding them from discussing military aspects of European aircraft collaboration. It was certainly not the Government's intention to restrict debate. That is why we have naturally accepted the wishes of the House and put down the present motion. Accordingly, it inevitably follows that there will be some repetition of the material in my speech during the debate in January and I hope that the House will in the circumstances be forbearing about this.
It is becoming increasingly clear that this is a crucial period for the future of the civil aircraft industry. Over the past few months there has been a great deal of activity at both industrial and governmental levels. No decisions have yet been taken, but we are moving towards them and it is therefore a useful occasion for the House to consider these matters before the decisions are taken. First, however, I must briefly refer to the documents which are the subject of the motion we are considering. They are described fully in the explanatory memoranda submitted to the House and I believe it will be unnecessary for me to discuss them in great detail.
It was in October 1975 that the European Commission submitted to the Council of Ministers the "Action Programme for the European Aeronautical Sector"—communication R/2461/75. The main proposals of the action programme were contained in a
proposal for a Council decision concerning the creation of a common policy in the civil aircraft and aviation sector",
supplemented by a draft resolution on the establishment of an EEC military procurement agency. These ambitious proposals were the response of the Commission to the Council resolution of 4th March 1975 calling for consultation and concertation

on future aircraft projects amongst the member States.
Communication R/1860/76 of July 1976 is a Commission document—"The European Aerospace Industry: Position and Figures"—which supplemented and updated the statistical information contained in the action programme.
Communication R/222/77 is an alteration by the Commission to the draft Council decision contained in the action programme and relates to the proposals for action in the field of air transport. It reflects in part the views of the European Assembly.
Communication R/1964/77 is a more recent development. It is concerned with aeronautical research and recommends initial programmes in the field of helicopter technology and airframe structures.
These, in brief, are the documents which are mentioned in the motion. The action programme itself has not been considered in full by the Council of Ministers, but I think it is fair to say that there has been general agreement amongst the member States that the Commission's proposals, as originally conceived, were unacceptable. This view, with which the Government agreed, has greatly influenced the course of action stemming from the action programme.
At the request of the committee of permanent representatives, a study of the proposals for the establishment of a joint programme for civil transport aircraft was carried out. This study resulted in the identification of a number of objectives for the future development of consultation between member States, notably a strategy for the manufacture of new large civil aircraft; joint action by European manufacturers towards cooperation with American manufacturers and joint research efforts. These objectives were approved by the Council in a statement in March 1977. It was also decided that member States examining potential civil aircraft projects in their countries should assist the Commission in the preparation of a report, for submission in due course to the Council, on the opportunities for co-operation offered by those projects.
In the last few days, the Commission has agreed on a communication to the Council of Ministers in pursuance of the


resolution 4th March 1975 and the statement of 14th March 1977 to which I have referred. This document will no doubt be examined by the House in the usual way. There has not been time in which to formulate the Government view on it and the House will not expect me to discuss it in detail now.
In brief, however, the communication sets out the current state of development of the main aircraft projects under consideration and attempts to define a role which the European Community might play in supporting the development of the European aircraft industry. This role, it is suggested, should include promoting discussions to draw together the interests of both manufacturers and users of civil aircraft in the EEC; and the mobilisation of resources, including the possibility of wider financial participation. Looking further ahead, the Commission suggests possible Community action to create a larger internal market for civil aircraft and to carry some of the industrial risks of new civil aircraft programmes. It also suggests back-up measures in the fields of trade and technology.
I have thought it right to draw the attention of the House to this very recent development since I am naturally anxious to give hon. Members the latest information about developments within the institutions of the EEC. I should also briefly mention developments in the field of research since our previous debate. Communication R/1964/77 was examined by the committee of permanent representatives on 26th January and has been referred to experts for more detailed study.
This history brings out the fact that the member States of the European Community, including ourselves, have approached the problem of aircraft collaboration in a practical way, based on specific projects. I would not deny that the Community institutions may have some role to play, but the main responsibility must rest with the manufacturers themselves, whose job it is to assess the market prospects and to design aircraft suitable for the market. National Governments will also be closely involved, given the enormous costs of developing a new civil aircraft. Finance for British Aerospace would normally be provided in the form of loans or public dividend

capital on which British Aerospace would be required to pay a proper rate of return. Even so, the sums of money required would be so large as to need careful consideration as part of the Government's financial planning for the public sector as a whole.
The House will recall that the two European projects under consideration are the B10, a derivative of the A300 Airbus with about 220 seats, and the JET aircraft—the joint European transport —a new design for the short- and medium-haul market. Two main versions of the JET aircraft have been discussed with leading airlines: the JET I with 136 seats, and the JET 2, with 163 seats. In the event, the market—which will be the final arbiter of all the projects under discussions—appears to have reacted more quickly to the B10 than to the JET concept.
British Aerospace has been playing a full part with its Continental colleagues, including Airbus Industrie, in the studies of design, market prospects, possible work-sharing and financial arrangements relating to these aircraft. As hon. Members know, British Aerospace is not a member of the Airbus Industrie consortium. However, it has a sub-contract to make the wing box for the A300 B3—B4. It has an overall design consultancy and British Aerospace staff are seconded to Airbus Industrie and have made important contributions in marketing and other areas. The House will have been pleased to note the recent deal between Airbus Industrie and Eastern Airlines in the United States. This will bring substantial new work to British Aerospace factories.
The deal with Eastern Airlines has enhanced the market prospects for the B10. It seems likely that decisions on the launch of the aircraft will be taken in the next month or so. British Aerospace is well aware that it will have to decide in the near future whether to join the project. The House will not expect me to reveal details of commercial negotiations, but I can say that British Aerospace is treating the negotiations as a matter of the utmost urgency and importance. The ultimate decisions, by both the Corporation and the Govern. ment, will naturally pay the closest regard to the prospects for commercial success of the aircraft. It cannot be said too


often that we are interested only in aircraft that will sell.
The Government, too, have demonstrated the importance which they attach to the subject. Last month, my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, met senior management of the three leading civil aircraft manufacturers in the United States—Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. They also saw their French and German counterparts, Monsieur le Theule and Herr Gruner. More recently still, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, saw senior management of Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Eastern Airlines during his visit to the United States last weekend. As has always been made clear, these discussions were for information and were in no sense negotiations. Their purpose was to enable Ministers to get first-hand information in preparation for the decisions they will eventually have to take.
The House will expect me to refer to the HS146 feeder-liner. British Aerospace recommended to the Government towards the end of March that the aircraft should go ahead. Since then, the Government have been giving that recommendation the most careful consideration. I entirely recognise the anxiety of hon. Members, particularly those with British Aerospace factories in their constituencies, that there should be an early decision, but I must remind them that even a relatively small aircraft such as the HS146 costs a great deal of money to develop. The Government would be failing in their duty if they failed to make a thorough examination of the project. Nevertheless. I very much hope that it will be possible to announce a decision before long.
If the HS146 goes ahead, British Aerospace would hope to collaborate with overseas partners. It is in particularly close discussion with the Italian firm Aer Italia and the Swedish firm Saab. We often talk of "Europe" as meaning the EEC, but, of course, European collaboration can go wider than the EEC, or even than Western Europe, as the recently announced deal with Romania makes clear.
In view of the comments made by several hon. Members during our previous debate in January, I should say a few

words about defence aspects. The links between the manufacture of civil and military aircraft are well known. Some two-thirds of the aircraft business of British Aerospace is military and similar statements could be made about the other main aircraft manufacturers in both Europe and the United States. The only major exception is Boeing and even it has substantial military business. Indeed, Boeing's first major success in the civil aircraft market, the 707, was based on a military design. The American civil aircraft manufacturers owe a good deal of their success to military research funded by the United States Department of Defense.
Collaboration in the military field is therefore important in its own right and because of its implications for the civil aircraft business. There are already important examples of successful European collaboration on military aircraft. The Anglo-French Jaguar is already in service. The Tornado, which is a joint venture between the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany, has entered series production after a very successful development and among the helicopters there are the Puma, Gazelle and Lynx. It is naturally our aim to build on these successes. Again, however, it seems to us that the right way forward is by discussions at national level.
We do not support the suggestion made by some that to overcome the alleged lack of political will to standardise, some sort of supernational procurement agency should be created—either European or NATO. The creation of such an agency to exercise detailed management control of the development and production of military equipment across the board would require a very large and expert staff and would involve very great transitional problems. The larger the number of countries and the wider the range of projects with which a single international organisation attempted to deal, the greater the risk of impairing the intimacy of communication and interaction required between industry and national procurement and operational staffs throughout the procurement process.
The need for trade-offs during the development process would also necessitate constant reference back to capitals. To the extent that such an agency exercised autonomy, problems could well arise


from the reduction in the degree of national control over the allocation of funds or the distribution of work. We would not accept the sovereignty implications which the creation of such an agency would involve. Nations must have the responsibility for equipping their own forces and making available the necessary resources.
So far I have been discussing the airframe industry, but, particularly in this country, we cannot forget aero engines, which provide roughly as many jobs as does work on airframes.
There is a good record of collaboration between Rolls-Royce and other European aero-engine manufacturers on a number of projects, notably the Adour, the RB199 and the Olympus 593 which powers Concorde. Future prospects for collaborative ventures are less clear. While the Government encourage Rolls-Royce to undertake major new projects on a collaborative basis if this offers reasonable commercial advantages, it has to be recognised that the likely opportunities in the civil market are fairly limited. Other European aero-engine manufacturers are already linked to a greater or lesser extent with United States companies—notably SNECMA with GE—and therefore the potential for any Rolls-Royce involvement within a European context is difficult to foresee. On the military side, engine development and procurement and the role of Rolls-Royce play a significant part in our consideration of possible future collaborative aircraft projects.
As to aeronautical research, the Government, including my defence colleagues as well as my Department, fully support the importance of collaborating within Europe in order to bring together our interests and to get better overall value from the resources available to us. In our earlier debate, I outlined three separate multinational activities with this aim. Since January, relatively little progress has been made with the discussions based on document R /1964/77. Although attempts are still being made to establish Community-wide programmes on airframes and helicopters and provision has been made for the money involved, we seem to be no nearer real agreement than we were in January.
However, this is not the complete picture. We have other, perhaps better, and

certainly more fruitful, routes to the underlying objective. Our collaboration with France, Germany and Holland in Garteur continues and shows signs of a healthy growth, and, with the same nations, we have established a small international group in Amsterdam to take further our studies of a possible transonic wind tunnel.
In our earlier debate, emphasis was properly placed on the difliculties of this sort of collaboration and of the implicit risks to United Kingdom industry. I should like to reassure the House that we are acting with the full support and encouragement of our industry which is deeply involved in the work. Indeed, one member of the wind tunnel team in Amsterdam comes from British Aerospace.
It is right that the House should have this renewed opportunity to discuss the Community documents that are mentioned in the motion. However, as I have made clear in my earlier remarks, the Government do not believe that much of the policy outlined in the documents is realistic. What counts is a practical and commercial approach to particular projects. That is the approach that British Aerospace, the Government and our counterparts in Europe have adopted.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The very dates after the obliques in the description of the documents speak for themselves. In many instances they are rather old documents in a world in which things move pretty quickly, not only in the air but in terms of the concepts that we discuss when various projects are put forward.
The debate on the documents to which the Minister of State referred, which we had on 23rd January, was partly abortive. I entirely accept that that was not through any intention. The motion that the Government placed on the Order Paper was somewhat tighter than intended. It precluded us from discussing military affairs although they were referred to in the documents. I had expected that this evening's debate would be restricted to military matters until I saw that the Government had drawn carefully a wide motion so that we might talk of any of the matters to which the documents refer, or those that have flowed from them.
It was not only that the motion was restrictive in January that inhibited the debate. The Minister, in January as in June, was unable or unwilling to answer many of the questions that were raised. In general, as I think this evening, he could delineate the policy of Her Majesty's Government only in the general terms that it was rather a good policy and that he was terribly in favour of it whatever it happened to be. However, it seemed that he was in no position actually to reveal it to us. It seems that that position has not changed.
We welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said in January about some of the collaborative research projects. I think that they are eminently sensible, as does the Minister. We are glad that Garteur and other organisations have carried on.
The Minister referred today to the latest communications on these matters from the Commission, which no doubt we shall consider before too long. There were some references to Community financing. I take it that the Minister and I find ourselves in complete agreement that we do not see much prospect of financing civil aircraft projects through the Community. I imagine that at least we can find that common ground.
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman through some of the matters raised in January. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who I see in his place, and the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), who is unnaturally absent when an opportunity is presented to take up the issue of the HS146, were present when the debate took place in January, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Chertscy and Walton (Mr. Pattie), who I see is seated behind me. They all asked about the XII, the A200 and the HS146.
Alas, the XII. In January the right hon. Gentleman said that the XII had been shelved. I suggested that its shelf life would be rather short. In fact, I said that it had been killed and not shelved, although he insisted that it had been only shelved. There was not a word about the project this evening. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman now accepts that it is dead. He would not accept that in January, but having not spoken a word about it for five months he Prob-

ably now accepts that it was killed. Nobody has seen any sign of life recently
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was anxious about the project in January. I take it that he will agree with me that the only thing to do with it now is to bury it decently.
The A200 is now called JET. We have a whole series of JETs. They spawn in all directions. There were some interesting things said about the HS146 back in January. The right hon. Gentleman said that British Aerospace was not in a position to decide whether it wished to make a recommendation, but he promised that when it did, if it did, it would be dealt with swiftly. We have moved on from March to June. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "swiftly"? I accept that these are major issues, but they have not crept up on the Minister by surprise. He has known for a long time that they were coming.
In January the right hon. Gentleman was still saying that nobody had even decided what the engines were to be and that there was still a chance for Rolls-Royce. We now know that the project has no place for Rolls-Royce engines. British Aerospace has made up its mind When will the Government make up their mind? What is holding them back from a decision on the HS146? Are they as yet unconvinced that it is a commercial project? Do they not trust the commercial judgment of British Aerospace?
We know that the Government do not trust the commercial judgment of British Airways. That has been made plain already. However, do they not trust the commercial judgment of the board that they appointed so recently? Or is it that the Government are so short of cash that they cannot authorise the HS146 to go ahead without the risk of prejudicing major decisions on the A300, the B757, JET or AMTR?
The right hon. Gentleman must know that British Aerospace now believes that it is fast losing potential customers for the HS146. Does he accept that it is, or does he think that he can continue to dilly and dally while trying to make up his mind what to do about the project? We have the feeling that if there were to be a General Election we might get a decision fairly quickly, bearing in mind the majority of the hon. Member for


Welwyn and Hatfield. I hope that we shall not have to play the silly game of pumping money into marginal Labour seats as an act of politics rather than taking a rational decision on economic grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman was cocky when he was nationalising the industry not that long ago. His hon. Friends were optimistic about the golden days that they saw ahead. We were told in Committee that in those days all the decisions would be taken out of the sordid capitalist concept of profit. We were told that decisions could be swiftly reached by a band of happy Socialist brothers. We were told that there would be no problems in future. We were told that there would be no rancour or delay, that there would be no mucking about and that everything would be easy.
I recollect warning Labour Members time and time again that whatever they thought there would be a third party apart from the Department of Industry and British Aerospace—the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman was always loath to admit that there would ever be a shortage of resources. He is now less cocky. I notice that his hon. Friends are lacking in the optimism that they had in earlier days.
In January the news was that the Prime Minister had had talks in December with the President of France about collaboration on the 130–170-seater aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman made a good deal of that. As a consequence, the XII was scrapped. The salesmen were called back home and the project was cancelled. That was the only result of the talks with the President of France.
The big news from the Minister now is that the Prime Minister has been talking to the President of America about collaboration with the United States. What is it that is to be announced before long? Are we to be told that this time we have lost our shirts? What came of the talks? The right hon. Gentleman said that they were talks about talks about talks. I wish that the Prime Minister would get down to something rather more concrete. At least the civil options have become clearer to all of us in the past five months.
I shall not repeat what I said in January or during an Adjournment debate

at the end of May. I would rather the time were used by the Under-Secretary of State to answer some of the questions which the Minister ducked. I am sorry that the Minister of State for Defence is not taking part in the debate because we have not heard a word from him on this subject.
I turn to the question of military aircraft and guided weapon collaboration. As in the civil sphere we seem to invent a different form of co-operation for every project. The Minister seems to like that way of behaving. We had SEPECAT for Jaguar. We had PANAVIA for MCRA. Is there to be no follow on programme to Jaguar for SEPECAT or to Tornado for PANAVIA? Is there a follow on collaborative programme in the military field at all? Will there be anything to follow, Puma, Lynx and Gazelle? Are there to be any more projects? What progress is being made on a definition of the combat aircraft to replace Harrier and Jaguar?
We know that the Government's thinking is that the requirements of the other principal European air forces are not easily fitted into the same time scale as ours. But is any effort being made to do so? With which other air forces are we looking to try to get a common agreement on what sort of aeroplane it should be? Have we yet made up our minds whether we are to launch a unilateral combat aircraft or whether we are to seek to make it a collaborative venture?
What is the Government's reaction to the noises from Europe suggesting that if we collaborate with the United States on civil aircraft the Europeans will blackball us in the military field? Do the Government take that seriously? It is difficult to know whether the Government take anything seriously, other than the Lib-Lab pact. whatever that was.
I turn to the question of the current discussions with United States manufacturers. Has Boeing been able to offer the advantage to our military programme in the event of collaboration on the 757? Has the question of a deal across more than the 757 been raised with Boeing? Has McDonnell Douglas given a clearer definition of the possibilities of a full transatlantic partnership to include the European firms on both civil and military


projects? Is it the Government's objective to forge such industrial alliances to bridge the Atlantic and the Channel?
The Minister should be able to answer at least some of these questions. He should be able to give us an idea of the Government's policy towards the industry other than that it will be revealed at some time in the future. We get that answer every time. We never seem to get anywhere near that future date. If the Minister thinks that he can fob off the Opposition with the types of answer that he has been giving I hope that he does not think that he can fob off the workers in the industry about which his rubbishy rhetoric spoke as recently as when the industry was being nationalised. Then his rhetoric referred to the march of Socialism. That was the cause in which he nationalised the British aerospace industry.
How much further do we have to march in the cause of Socialism before a single new project is put into the factories? How much longer do we have to wait? These chaps cannot live on that type of rhetoric. They require aeroplanes to make and sell in the world markets. The Minister may shrink and try to get out of the way of his hon. Friends behind him. But they know that it is true. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West knows how many Labour seats are at risk if there is no work in those factories. Indeed, he is affected.
There is not much march of Socialism going on now. It is the march of customers' feet as they head for Burbank, Palmdale, Seattle, Toulouse, Amsterdam, and every aviation centre except ours. The Secretary of State, after all this time since nationalisation, has been able to find only one partner for our industry—Romania—and I do not think that any of us can have much confidence in the future of aerospace manufacturing in Britain. It is not Romania where the great market lies. It is in a somewhat wider world, even if it is not the wide world which appeals to him. He might prefer Romania, but some of us have wider aspirations than that.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Listening to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) one would imagine that the privately owned aero-

space industry, before public ownership, was a leader in dynamic order getting and risk taking and that in a matter of months the whole industry had collapsed round our ears. I do not see any evidence that other and larger private enterprise firms throughout the aerospace world are rushing into new projects. There is no such evidence. That is why McDonnell Douglas and Boeing are over here and willing to wine and dine certain hon. Members in order to develop a collaborative project with British Aerospace.
The Opposition keep saying that we must have some kind of collaborative project. I do not complain about that. But the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chingford is that if we had not nationalised the British aerospace industry, BAC and Hawker-Siddeley would already be producing aeroplanes containing 160 or 200 seats for which we are told there is a considerable market.
We should remind ourselves that the British aerospace industry would have gone down the drain a long time ago if it were not for the injection of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. That is what kept the British aerospace industry going. The industry has always said taxpayers should pay, but if there is any profit in a project that is different.
If it were not for the Labour Government we should not today be talking about the HS146. Private enterprise would have ditched it by now whatever its merits. The hon. Member for Chingford is producing an argument which resembles the midnight horror movies on BBC2. I do not remember my right hon. Friend when we were in Committee talking of a golden age. I thought that too often—and I chided him about it—he was too much dominated by capitalist ethics. He kept talking about viable projects. All I remember the hon. Member for Chingford and his colleagues doing on the Committee was fighting every inch of the way to ensure that the previous owners of the three firms received the highest level of compensation possible. That was in the forefront of their minds all the time.
If the Opposition had had their way they would have dragged out the debates, and their friends, the "bovver boys" in ermine along the corridor would have


created a situation in which British aerospace was in a worse position than it is today.
During the debate in January my right hon. Friend suggested that we were looking at old documents. I accept that we are. I drew attention to the philosophy in the documents, certainly the 1975 document. I said that the bueaucrats of Brussels wanted a European bureaucratically controlled aerospace industry. The only way in which my right hon. Friend could placate me was to suggest that there had been a change in the Commissioner. Commisioner Davignon, because of the Italian General Election, was now the Commissioner responsible. I was told that the new Commissioner looked at these matters in a different and pragmatic way.
I am not happy about that explanation. I still believe that the 1975 documents and those close to them represent the real thinking of the bureaucrats of Brussels. It is all very well to say that provided we have the right Commissioner at the right time he can stop these developments. But suppose that we were to have a Tory Government, what would be the position then? I doubt whether we shall, after the massive handouts that the Opposition have given to those earning over £10,000 a year. If anyone votes for them apart from those earning over £10,000 a year, I shall be very surprised. But suppose we had a Tory Government? I think they would be quite happy, because of their attitude to Europe, to the Common Market and to federalism, to hand the British aerospace industry on a plate to the European bureaucrats, and to have a so-called European aerospace industry, with very little effective control by this House.

Mr. Tebbit: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will get to the point of suggesting handing the industry over to the American capitalists. That is the direction in which the Government are veering at the moment.

Mr. Thomas: I do not consider that entering into a collaborative project with Boeing or McDonnell Douglas on the right terms would be handing over the industry to the American capitalists. Certainly I wish that the industry in Britain could go it alone, but one has to be realistic. I should have thought that

everyone here accepts that Britain cannot go it alone on a particular project or on the kinds of projects that we are talking about this evening.
As I have said, I am still not happy that we can hold back some of the demands of the European bureaucrats simply by hoping that fortuitously a general election in a particular EEC country will result in getting rid of a particular Commissioner, and that we shall thereby be enabled to retain control of our aerospace industry.
I think it is a pity that we have not had a detailed debate in this House on the aerospace industry. We either have to try to deal with it in an Adjournment debate or in a debate of this kind, which is not very satisfactory.
There appear to be three options open to us at the moment in terms of projects for a 160-seater or 200-seater aeroplane. It is quite clear that there will be a considerable market in the years ahead. There is the McDonnell Douglas suggestion for collaboration, based on a third from British Aerospace, a third from another European country, and a third from McDonnell Douglas.
Next, there is the Boeing option. I can assure my right hon. Friend—who already knows it—that many of us are very concerned indeed at the threat that British Airways may opt for buying Boeing, because we sincerely believe that any tie-up with Boeing will reduce the possibilities of British Aerospace, in terms of design and development, very considerably indeed. I would not put it as high as saying that it would be the end of British Aerospace, but that has certainly been suggested.
I know that Boeing is putting forward as a carrot the possibility of Rolls-Royce engines being used. We understand from certain information that Boeing is also talking of a particular aircraft with a General Electric engine. I think that Boeing will propose that any engine should go into a particular aircraft if it thinks this will suit its potential customers. There can be little doubt that Rolls-Royce engines will be put into any aircraft provided that they are the best engines for the purpose, and provided that the airline concerned considers them to be the best engines. It will not be because Boeing or any other company says so.
I do not think that the Minister has touched adequated on the JET project. He has told us that negotiations are continuing, but those who work in the industry feel that there seems to be a lack of dynanism in the negotiations which are said to be going on between British Aerospace and certain European countries. There seems to be a lack of information coming through and a lack of consultation with those who work in the industry.
The hon. Member for Chingford said that the X11 had gone completely. I hope that this is not the case. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not mentioned the X11, because we were assured that the X11 could be ready before the JET project in order to meet the market which is expected for this kind of aeroplane.
With regard to the HS146, there is the question whether this is to have the Canadian engine or the Rolls-Royce M45 engine. Those who work in the industry are still convinced that the M45 engine can overcome some of the problems which are said to be associated with it.
One of the documents deals with helicopters. I very much hope that the Secretary of State is following closely the position at Westland Helicopters. Westland Helicopters is essentially the helicopter industry in this country. In the judgment of many of my colleagues, the management of Westland is acting like a nineteenth century autocratic employer. It is blaming its work people for its financial problems, which, I understand, are mainly due to the fact that in 1973 it signed a fixed-price contract with the Ministry of Defence to supply Lynx helicopters to the British and French forces. I am very pleased to note that one of the Defence Ministers is here this evening.
Rolls-Royce collapsed because of a fixed-price contract. After the traumatic experience which took place at that time, I find it amazing that a couple of years later the Tory Government should have entered into another fixed-price contract, the consequences of which are now coming home to roost. I blame the company as much as I blame the Tory Government.
In order to try to overcome its present financial problems, Westland is trying to force the workers to accept cuts of up

to £13 a week in their pay packets. I urge the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence to look at the position very closely indeed. I regret that we did not bring Westland Helicopters into public ownership when we nationalised BAC and Hawker Siddeley, because I am convinced that before very long it will be coming to the Government cap in hand for money, although I understand that the managing director has said that he will not touch the National Enterprise Board with a barge pole, or words to that effect.
Thirty-five of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have already signed a motion drawing his attention to the position at Westland Helicopters, and I should like to see the company taken over by British Aerospace. Let us have a planning agreement in that part of the industry as well as other parts in order to safeguard the future of those who work in this vital industry.

7.8 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am very conscious of my lack of qualification to speak in the debate. I had not realised the depth of my ignorance on the matter until I found myself in almost total agreement with what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) was saying. At that point I concluded that I must be either mad or even more ignorant than I thought. However, I will press on, because I want, for very different reasons, to support the central part of his argument.
I am sufficiently familiar with aeronautical matters to be aware that this is a field in which every speaker is unshakably convinced of the unique rightness of his case—so much so that I wonder whether I am in order in putting forward a highly tentative view, with many reservations. However, I am encouraged by the speech made by the Minister, in which he quite clearly left us not merely on a darkling plain but in a quicksand, blindfold, and in a thick, swirling fog. We had very little enlightenment from what he said.
I should like briefly to plead with the Government, from a committed European point of view, to follow a policy which will keep open the option of co-operation with the European aerospace industry on some kind of medium-range jet while at


the same time seeking to enlarge the area of co-operation between the European aerospace industry and an American partner. In practice, this is perhaps not quite backing all ways at once, because it seems to point to the possibility of co-operation with McDonell Douglas rather than with Boeing.
I have no personal interest to declare. I have a semi-constituency interest in that one section of British Aerospace— Hawker Siddeley at Chester—is engaged in manufacturing the wings for the present A300 airbus. As the Minister knows, that is a project which Hawker Siddeley entered into off its own bat, without Government encouragement, in the days when it was independent. Work is still going ahead satisfactorily and is providing a large number of jobs.
Despite this constituency interest, I have made an effort to balance in my own mind the advantages and disadvantages of the obvious option—the partnership with Boeing which would exclude any co-operation with the European aeronautical industry. What bothers me is that it is bad enough to tic Britain to the coat tails of the United States on a Governmentto-Government basis, but it seems very much worse, and very much more dangerous, to tie our now nationalised aircraft industry, which is, therefore, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, control and some degree of interference, to becoming a sub-contractor of a non-responsible United States corporation which, not to be too choosy about words, is sometimes not very careful in its choice of methods. I believe that that kind of partnership would open the door to all kinds of practices which we in this House would find very difficult to accept. Indeed, it would be a relationship which would almost necessarily have corruption running in its veins.
On the other hand, to put the other side of the case, I cannot convince myself with any certainty that there is room for a successful rival to Boeing with regard to the construction of the kind of civil aircraft about which we are talking, or indeed that a European aerospace industry, even in partnership with McDonell Douglas, can in the long run be anything other than a drain on European resources.
It may well be that aeronautics will be able to offer jobs in the industrialised

Western world to a substantial number of people on a viable basis only if it is gathered under one single umbrella. The competition from the developing world is accelerating at an alarming pace, and it could well he that in the decades to come, we shall see whole sections of the aeronautical industry going the way of the motor car industry.
Despite these doubts and hesitations, if we decided that there was the possibility of co-operation with the European aerospace industry, might that not in turn enable us to strike a better bargain with Boeing? These are uncertainties. The one thing I can say is that I do not envy the Minister with regard to the decision that he will have to take.
My final point is a very much wider one. This is a question which, if decided on its merits, will eventually give one kind of conclusion. There are many other such questions. For example, there is agricultural policy, energy policy, financial policy and nuclear policy. There are all these separate major issues which present great difficulties to the Government. But if each is decided on its merits, it will give a certain answer. They are all part of our relationship with Europe and part of our status in the world. If they are all considered together, the answers as to what is in Britain's best interests may be very different indeed.
After all, whether we like it or not—I Know that Labour Members do not like it—we are now finally members of the European Community. Unless we want to look perfect fools, we should not even reconsider the question of our membership. We have to make it work. It has to succeed. If it has to succeed, then we must consider all these major decisions in that light. Our membership of the Community must, therefore, be a major factor in every major decision of this type which we take.
I am not suggesting that because we are members of the EEC we necessarily have to choose the European option in relation to aeronautics. I am just anxious to ensure that the Government are giving these matters full weight in their consideration of these problems.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton: I should like to take advantage of this debate, because for a number of reasons


it gives the House an opportunity of hearing at first hand from hon. Members, from either or both sides, who have been deeply involved in the consideration of the documents which are the subject of the motion before the House. It enables those hon. Members to make a number of points. The first relates to procedure. I should like to restate what I have said on a number of occasions such as this, that the present procedure for so-called scrutinising European legislation and the like is lamentably inadequate. It is lamentably inadequate not for the reason which perhaps some Labour Members were signifying but for very good reasons, some of which I shall put forward—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I doubt very much whether the question which the hon. Gentleman will pursue is in order in connection with what we are now considering. Certain documents are under consideration and perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to confine his contribution to those.

Mr. Normanton: I note your strictures on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall therefore confine my comments strictly and solely to the relevance of consultation and discussion, and the consideration which has gone on for many months—for at least 18 months to my knowledge—in at least one institution of the European Community. With respect to the Chair, I am quite certain that this is highly relevant to the consideration of the documents which are now in front of us.
The point I am making is that we are considering Commission documents. We ought to be considering the reports which have been prepared in the European Parliament on this kind of matter which give a far broader aspect to a study of the Commission proposals than the Commission proposals themselves can possibly do. These documents which we are considering are in a sense consultative documents. They are proposals. They are not necessarily final decisions. They are proposals to put to the Council of Ministers which, it is hoped will lead finally to positive and definite decisions and to Community policies.
We know very well that there is a wide gap between the proposals, which are

prepared with an enormous amount of care by the Commission, and the eventual decisions which are reached by the Council of Ministers. This is one of the aspects which we should not ignore in the debate on this set of Commission documents. Unless we see the actual parliamentary and political arguments which have gone into the consideration of these documents we are very inadequately aware of the contributions that hon. Members on both sides of the House have made to the documents. That is relevant to the whole principle of this kind of debate.
The second point that is relevant arises from the fact that I believe that the House should have taken note, in considering this set of Commission documents of the major debate 10 days ago in the European Assembly which was of considerable political significance, as future historians will confirm. This debate covered the whole question of defence equipment procurement within the EEC including aeronautical policy.

Mr. Neil Marten: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend. But I do not understand how we can do that when the Hansard of the European Parliament is written in six different languages. I can only read his contribution, not those of the Dutch, German and French MPs and so on.

Mr. Normanton: Inevitably for those who are not au fait with the six languages of the Community there is a time lag involved. I include myself among those who do not have a command of the six languages. However, there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have first-hand knowledge of Community languages other than their own and who have participated in debates armed with this knowledge. I deeply regret that the House does not take cognisance of the contributions that hon. Members have made to this crucially important subject tonight.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the delay in producing the translation of debates from the European Assembly is very little when compared with the delay in getting any comment from any Minister which means anything at all about anything to do with what has been said inside or outside this House or the European Assembly.

Mr. Normanton: I am always delighted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), particularly on this point, which he has made so tellingly.
In preparation for the debate on defence equipment procurement, which included aeronautical policy and associated aspects, I was appointed by the Economic Affairs and Monetary Policy Committee to undertake a major study of economic, technological, financial and industrial aspects of European defence procurement, including aeronautics. In the course of this study, throughout last year I was privileged to have personal and private meetings with all the Defence Ministers of the Community, with virtually all the chiefs of staff of Community States, and with the heads of procurement of member States. Out of these discussions arose a number of relevant points which should be considered along with the contents of these documents. These need to be recorded in the proceedings of this House and brought to the attention of those with responsibility for aeronautical policy within the Government.
It has become increasingly clear that the aeronautical industry is dominated by the United States—and dominated is an understatement. The Americans are giants in this field of industrial technology, simply because the European aeronautical industry is fragmented and divided. It is fragmented because in almost every case in Europe it is linked to sovereign States, and therefore linked to different Ministries of Defence.
Here I cross swords with the Minister in presentation of his case tonight because he made the point that this aspect of policy could be pursued only by sovereign States and should not be left to another agency or institution. That statement was insular and myopic. It will be proven to be so in years to come, as each and every individual State finds itself increasingly unable to mount and finance the scale of investment in research and production which is fundamental in military aircraft particularly, and civil aircraft as well, if we are to maintain any role in world trade or technology.
It is in this area that European States are getting more and more out of their depth, and this country is no exception. There is ample evidence to show that

even the United States is moving slowly and painfully in that direction as well. In all the discussions that have been held on this subject, the moments of truth have come through.
The other area that is relevant to these discussions is that we are not concerned solely with employment per se. We could have full employment tomorrow by having men dig a hole one day and fill it in the next. But for a continent and a country so totally dependent on their ability to compete in the world, and totally dependent on technology and technological expertise, there is a very sound reason to develop a structure of an aeronautical industry, outside the United States, on a European basis, and not on the basis of individual member States. No State today is sovereign in this field, and this is true of most fields of political activity.
After that important debate In the European Parliament ten days ago, it became clear that the recognition of that fact is coming home increasingly in each and every one of the Parliaments of the member States of Europe. It is certainly coming home to those who serve in the European Assembly from the Parliaments of the nine member States.
As a result of that long and intensive debate we had a vote that was, significantly, carried by a considerable majority. That vote recommended, indeed pressed, on the Council of Ministers a proposal for establishing a European Community equipment procurement agency or institution. It did not spell out the details of how this should be achieved, but at least it established the principle.
That proposal will form part of the development of industry and company organisations, trade and technology right across the board in Western Europe, and it will make a major contribution to our better expertise and higher technological capability in engaging in world trade.
The Government are said to be having discussions across the Atlantic, and I understand from the Minister has said that they are also discussing this proposal with other interested parties as well. But if from these discussions comes a commitment to the United States or a major aeronautical company there, I am convinced that that will set the seal on the inability of the European aeronautical


industry to be competitive in the world. It will be a major setback in the European countries in respect of their ability to be more effective in the high technology sector. Against that background, I earnestly hope that the Government will think seriously before entering into any commitment of that kind across the Atlantic.
The Minister said that these documents were not realistic. I believe that that phrase should be applied to the Government's handling of this matter. It is the Government who are not being realistic because they are seeking to ignore the substance and purport of these documents. Therefore, I hope that they will be realistic when the discussions that take place across the Atlantic and with Europe have been concluded.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I wish to make a few remarks on the military aspects of the documents.
I wish to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) on the subject of the XII. I agree with him that there was an excellent opportunity in that respect which could have been grasped. It required a decision at the time, but I fear that we must now pronounce the funeral rites on that project.
On the subject of armament procurement, no study group, committee or symposium or any kind of organisation which has examined the subject of the differing armament procurement requirements of the European NATO nations has taken the view that the present situation is satisfactory. Something must be done about the situation. The list of organisations which have come up with reports on the subject is very long. However, such reports always arrive at the same conclusion. They always go on to say that the answer lies in providing a pan-European procurement agency. In one of the documents we now have before us they are at it again. I refer to document 2461/75 which says:
Any policy designed to strengthen and develop the aircraft industry must therefore include common action in the defence equipment field. To this end the Governments of the Member States should decide to create a joint arms procurement agency for airborne weapon systems… to be responsible for joint

development and purchasing of airborne weaponry to meet the needs of the European armed forces".
I submit that such an agency could only sensibly be part of a totally new context —that involving a European defence treaty leading to a European defence community. At the moment there is no shortage of institutions attempting to grapple with this problem. At present we have the independent European programme group, which is carrying out very good work: we have something called EURONAD, the national armaments directors sub-group of the eurogroup; we have the Western European Union; we have a body called FINABELL, which was set up by the French chiefs of staff in 1953 and which we joined in 1972. In NATO itself we have CNAD, the conference of national armaments directors. We have even more acronyms. For example, we have AGARD, the advisory group for aerospace research and development; we have also the military agency for standardisation. Therefore, there is no shortage of agencies and authorities try-trying to do something about common procurement.

Mr. Tebbit: It is time they were standardised.

Mr. Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps they should be standardised. It appears to be impossible to try to define some form of procurement agency that will work for Europe when Europe is part of an alliance which contains the United States. What will happen when NATO is considering future procurement requirements with the United States sitting on the sidelines so that all the European nations must go into caucus either before or afterwards and take the view "We are thinking of trying to do something separate in purely European terms"? It seems to me that a basic question must be answered, which is nothing less than almost a renegotiation of NATO, if we are to try to get a European military procurement agency to work.
There is a vital distinction between military and civil requirements. A pan-European civil structure is not appropriate, as the Minister has already said, and it is not appropriate for totally different reasons. I believe that the Commission, well meaning though it is, has


the matter wrong. I believe that the common civil structure will not work because one has to rely entirely on purely commercial considerations and on whether the airlines will buy one's product. No matter what kind of structure exists, one must have the right kind of product at the right time and at the right price. On the military side, defence considerations must be paramount. We are part of the NATO alliance and, unless we can find some way of devising a new structure which will reconcile the European procurement involvement with NATO, that will not work either.
I wish to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the AST403. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to tell us, following his discussion with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, how far our discussions with France and West Germany have gone and whether we shall be able to standardise that replacement—a highly desirable aim.
As for missiles, very important cooperation is in progress towards a new SAM 3 project involving France, West Germany and this country. This is yet another case in which the achievement of standardisation will in no way be due to our devising a new procurement agency. If we do not get a new SAM 3 project under way through Euromissile, the United States will take the fruits. Whether we succeed will depend on the skills of those involved and will in no way be enhanced by having a new military procurement agency.

7.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): We have had a useful and well-informed debate and some important contributions from both sides, of which I am sure the Government will be only too anxious to take note.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in opening the debate, we believe that this is a critical moment for the future of civil aircraft policy. I wish to assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government will pay close attention to their views.
Although opinions have differed about the best way forward, I believe that everybody in the House is at one in wanting to foster the long-term healthy develop-

ment of all parts of the civil and military aircraft industry in this country.
I can also say with some confidence that hon. Members on both sides of the House share the Government's belief that although the European Commission may be able to help in certain respects, civil aircraft policy must remain largely a matter for the manufacturers, acting, of course, in response to the needs of the market.
We believe that the grandiose plans of the Spinelli report are unrealistic. They are also unnecessary, since the main European aircraft manufacturers, including British Aerospace, are already in close touch. As was made clear earlier in the debate, British Aerospace is playing a full part in current design and marketing studies, of both the Airbus Industrie B10 and the JET aircraft.
Several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), pressed for some kind of declaration of preference between Europe on the one hand and the United States on the other.

Mr. Tebbit: If the Minister has gained that impression I want to correct him. I think that the Government are perfectly correct in the way in which they are approaching the problem in the sense that they are looking for a commercial deal which is not to be dictated in terms of a preference for collaboration with America or Europe. Do not let the hon. Member misunderstand what I said.

Mr. Huckfield: I am glad that the hon. Member, on behalf of his party, appreciates the pace at which these discussions are going. The most important thing is to get the decision right. Obviously it is only fair and proper that the Government should be considering all possible options and taking things at the pace that they are.
Certain hon. Members in the debate apparently suggested that the Prime Minister's recent talks with United States aircraft manufacturers seemed to be an indication that we had already decided in favour of transatlantic co-operation to the exclusion of Europe. This attitude is based on a misapprehension. British Aerospace, with Government approval, has given priority to discussions with its Continental colleagues. But the aim should not be for Europe and the United States to form two competing blocs. Our


ultimate aim should be collaboration between Europe and America. Perhaps at this stage that aim may prove to be overambitious, and that is why both the Government and British Aerospace are examining possible alternatives. But it would be premature to conclude at this stage that that is unattainable.
The recent discussions between the Prime Minister and leading United States companies do not, I must stress, imply that decisions have been taken. As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, they were simply for the purpose of getting information about the plans of the companies concerned. The importance and relevance of the plans both of Boeing and of McDonnell Douglas hardly need further description. Eastern Airlines, which is the second largest airline in the world, in terms of the number of customers carried, is a potential launch customer for the proposed RB211-535 engine. In undertaking these dicussions my right hon. Friend gave the clearest possible indication of the importance that the Government attach to getting the impending decisions right.
I turn now to the HS146. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made the point very firmly once more that but for this Government we should not now still be talking about that aircraft. Several of my hon. Friends have in the past stressed the need for an early decision on this project, and I accept the force of what they say. The Government are fully aware of the reasons, particularly the market reasons, for speed in coming to a decision.
A number of doubts have been expressed from time to time from the Opposition Benches about the aircraft's prospects. No one could deny that forecasting the market for any aircraft is an uncertain business. But I do not believe that one should paint an unnecessarily gloomy picture. This is a question not of dilly-dallying but of giving these matters the fullest possible consideration and, in the end, getting the decision right.
It is generally agreed that the market for which the HS146 is designed can be expected to expand during the 1980s. There have been expressions of interest in the aircraft from a good many airlines. It is an extremely quiet aircraft, a point

that will become increasingly important in the future.
Let me say now a few words about the aero engine business since several hon. Members have been referring indirectly to the need for an early decision to launch the RB211-535. If hon. Members advocate that argument they are putting the cart before the horse because before we can agree to the launch of a new engine and the investment of many millions of pounds that that involves, we must be assured that it has adequate market prospects, and in practice that means having launch orders from major airlines. I am sure that Rolls-Royce and the National Enterprise Board can reasonably look to the Government for a decision which will enable them to respond with a "Yes" or "No" if there is a prospect of such orders. That the Government will do their best to give them.

Mr. Tebbit: It is important that the Minister gets this right. I think that he referred first to orders for the engine and, secondly, to prospects of orders as a condition of the launch. I think that he would probably want to stick by the latter expression if there were any doubt about it. He must be aware that there is no possibility of manufacturers coming forward and ordering an engine unless there is absolute certainty that it will be available in the aircraft they want on the day that they want it.

Mr. Huckfield: Of course the hon. Member is right, and that is what I was stressing to him. There has to be an airframe as well.
Perhaps I may now refer particularly to the points which the hon. Members for Chingford and Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) made about military collaboration. They seemed to be saying that there was a need for some kind of better, more continuous framework. I must tell them, however, that what I might describe as the ad hoc collaboration on the military side has been very successful. I can only quote the best and most recent example of the Tornado project. I believe that this programme has seen a good and beneficial transition from development to production. We hope that the aircraft will be in service with the RAF in the 1980s, and I hope that the hon. Members will give credit where it is due to that kind of collaboration.

Mr. Pattie: I certainly should like to give credit where it is due on that point. I hope that I did not mislead the Minister in what I said. My point was that this is precisely the type of project and the way by which we should be proceeding rather than having some great structure beneath which everything should be flitted in.

Mr. Huckfield: That is what I was hoping the hon. Gentleman would say, because that is very much the Government's view. I am sure that he recognises that IEPG is probably the best way forward. It is not a centralised or bureaucratic way. It does not have a strong central secretariat—indeed, it does not have a central secretariat. But it means that projects such as the TCA and new helicopters can be discussed within that framework, and that is what is taking place at the moment.
On TCA, there are currently national studies on about six basic aircraft, and it is hoped that we can narrow the options during the coming year. On helicopters, I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that there is a need for some replacement for the Sea King, and discussions are now continuing about a possible family package for future helicopter development. But, once again, the fact that the TCA discussion and the helicopter replacement discussion are taking place within the IEPG framework shows that that is the best way forward.

Mr. Ron Thomas: May I stress as strongly as possible the seriousness of the situation at Westland Helicopters? The latest news I have this evening is

that the management is threatening to close the plant down.

Mr. Huckfield: I was coming to what my hon. Friend said about the Westland situation. I have visited the factory in the past and I am familiar with some of the discussions which have taken place. I certainly recognise the very serious implications of developments of recent weeks. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that we are of course watching them very closely. I fully recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend has expressed on this subject this evening.
The decisions which we and our European partners seem likely to be taking in the coming weeks and months may determine the future of the aircraft industry on this side of the Atlantic at least for the rest of the century. That is why it is utterly right to have these decisions taken at the right place and to get them right in the end.
We should be grateful for any help which the institutions of the European Community can give, but it seems clear that the decisions will be taken by manufacturers and their national Governments. What has been said today demonstrates the conviction of the Government about the urgency and importance of these decision and their wish to take full account of the views which have been expressed in the House, particularly tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of EEC Documents Nos. R/2461/75, R/1860/76, R/222/77 and R/1964/77 on the Aeronautical Sector.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (CRIMINAL LAW)

8.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/2043/76 on Criminal Law.
I begin by thanking the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), for its report on these proposals. The Committee raised a number of pertinent questions during the course of its deliberations. As the Government have at the moment reached no fixed views on the report, I think that this is a good opportunity for the views of the House to be heard. They may not be heard very loudly and clearly tonight, but at least the invitation has been made.
I should like to explain the present status of the document. When the document was sent by the Commission to the Council in August 1976, it was thought that last autumn would also have been the time when the European Parliament, which considers all such documents, delivered its opinion so that the Council might act on the proposals before this coming September. That has not been the case. The opinion is still awaited. Therefore, we are in the same position today as regards positive developments over these proposals as we were when the Select Committee published its report.
It is important to remember that, although we are considering only one document, we are essentially considering two distinct proposals within it. The common element which binds them is the criminal law. The first proposal seeks to amend the Community treaties so as to allow acts against the financial interests of the Community to be covered by the criminal law. We contributed to the work of a working group set up by the Commission in 1973 to tailor existing plans.
The other proposal seeks to ensure that the national laws of member States designed to combat those offences likely to be committed by or against Community officials are also applicable to Community officials.
As I have said, we are not committed—nor is any other member State—to either of these proposals. Legislation

would be required before any change was made in our law.
Neither of the two proposals would, in my judgment, require any change in the substance of the criminal law which applies in the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The law in Scotland, as in England, penalises the misconduct at which the proposals are aimed if it is within the jurisdiction. The position may be different in some other member States. There is one possible exception, but that comes under the second proposal.
The protocol to the draft treaty relating to offences committed in relation to Community officials would require us to apply to Community officials the provisions of our criminal law which relate to "breach of professional secrecy". We have no such specific provisions in our law. As hon. Members will know, we have only recently debated the Official Secrets Act and the possible rejigging of Section 2 of that Act. We think that the article would involve us in applying to Community officials the law relating to the unauthorised disclosure of official information which applies to our own civil servants. We shall seek to confirm this in the further negotiations which will take place on this proposal. By the time that we need to take any such action, we hope that our own law will have been amended and considerably improved. I reiterate the pledge that I gave about a White Paper on the reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
When we come to jurisdiction, there are greater problems. Our traditional system of enforcing the criminal law is very different from that of many of the rest of the Nine. The Select Committee, in its report, has noted some of these differences.
In our common law systems, jurisdiction is largely based on territory, although there are some exceptions. The Suppression of Terrorism Bill, which was debated within the last month in the House, is an exception. We generally insist on oral evidence and place emphasis on the opportunity for cross-examination.
The civil code countries view things differently. Nevertheless, on the substance of the matter, whatever our views of the Community, I believe that we


should be anxious to safeguard Community funds so that no overt fraud cannot be checked by any law in any of the member States. We are discussing proposals to deal with that kind of matter.
We have traditionally relied upon extradition as being preferable to the transfer of proceedings for dealing with the offender who moves away from the country where the offence was committed. The Government will continue to press for priority to be given to the use of extradition where serious offences against Community law are concerned. However, under the proposals, we should in no way lose our option to use extradition if it is practicable in a particular case. If extradition were unsuitable and we were to agree to the transfer of proceedings, there would be the same safeguards.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) made a particular point regarding extradition and suggested that the transfer of proceedings would rob the person concerned of a valuable judicial safeguard—the establishment of a prima facie case—if it were to be removed in favour of a transfer to the country trying it. Whilst that certainly is a theoretical position, a prima facie case is no more and no less than committtal proceedings. If the case were to go to a higher court for trial, as I believe it would, and were not to be triable by a magistrates' court, exactly the same prima facie case would need to be made out at first instance before the committtal could take place. Therefore, in reality, even on a transfer of proceedings rather than extradition, no step in judicial safeguard is lost. Nevertheless, I believe that, in our dealings with this matter, we should express our preference for the continuation of extradition proceedings wherever possible.
The second point that I want to make is that it is not automatic that any country which is requested to have proceedings transferred to it should accede to that request, although reasons are to be given if a decision is taken not to prosecute. We might need to take full advantage of that provision if our insistence upon oral evidence and the compulsion of witnesses to travel abroad cannot be enforced.
On the other hand, the second proposal provides that the member State of which an accused person is a national shall take proceedings against him in that State, but it goes on to stipulate that no member State should be required to prosecute its own nationals in all cases for offences committed elsewhere as the State where the conduct occurred may be asked, and may agre, to institute proceedings it that would be in the interests of justice. I think that all member States are alive to the fact that there would be obstacles to the free transfer of proceedings in our various jurisdictions if the scheme envisaged were adopted.
Of course, we would not want to prosecute all offences committed abroad. In the majority of cases, another member State would have a greater interest in taking the proceedings, and we would naturally be reluctant to see the transfer of proceedings happening frequently in trivial cases. Equally, we should not be able to grant or seek extradition unless the gravity of the case warranted such action—and this is one of the major subjects of discussion which will need to take place in the Council of Ministers and the working parties which will be set up if, at the end, we are to come out with something that makes sense and provides proper protection without in any way diminishing the protection of our law and the way in which it is conducted.
The Select Committee also drew attention to article 177 of the treaty establishing the EEC, under which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on certain questions. The proposals provide that persons covered by them shall, if they are in custody, have the benefit of a three-month time limit within which the court must give its ruling.
The Government accept that this proposal represents a wider divergence from our criminal procedures than any other proposals in the draft document. Because of that, we shall need to take and we shall take great care when the time comes to consider those proposals in detail. We are naturally greatly concerned both for the rights of accused persons in custody and the problems caused by the disruption of a hearing and the disbanding of the jury pending the ruling of the court.
I believe that this is an opportunity for the House to express a view on the substance of these proposals. It can do so at a time when the Government have not taken a fixed view and are not therefore saying to the House "Please rubber-stamp our view". We are genuinely concerned to safeguard both Community funds and, more important, the right to justice which exists in this country.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Could the Minister indicate which Department of State would be responsible for supervising these arrangements and for enforcing them and watching their enforcement as between States? Would it be the Home Office? Would it be the Attorney-General?

Mr. John: I can speak only about those Departments which have so far played any part in the matter. There has been a number of them, including the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's Department, because there are jurisdictions in Britain and not a jurisdiction.
I was emphasising that we have to seek the protection of our law and not weaken it in any way whilst making the point that Community funds must be protected. I hope that the House will give its views in a constructive way so that whenever the opinion is delivered and whenever the discussions are undertaken, the Government will be able to do their best on behalf of the country.

8.4 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: We are grateful to the Minister of State for the guidance he has given us on this document.
As he says, this is a preliminary discussion. There are two matters which I think are important to note. One is that this draft document does not call for the creation of any new offences. It is also important to note that the proposals do not require any change in the traditional safeguards for the defendant under our existing law of evidence or criminal procedure.
It does extend the principle of extraterritoriality—a terrible word, one of the bastard words which has crept into the English language, I suppose, ever since we extended our principle of that word,

which is not unknown to our law. It has always existed so far as murder is concerned and under the Official Secrets Act in the case of certain United Kingdom citizens, and recently we have created it so far as certain hijacking offences are concerned.
The examples that we have seen in the Common Market indicate that there is a need for a provision of this kind, especially seeing that a fraud committed by a company established in one member State in the territory of another cannot give rise to criminal proceedings in what I might loosely call the home State. The offences themselves do not always fall within the fraud definition of the State where the offence was committed if the offence was aimed at Community funds rather than the national funds of the State concerned. There are certain States where, if the offence was against Community funds and not national funds, their provisions of criminal law will not cover that situation.
Obviously, a loophole of that sort must be filled. The provision decided upon was to permit a member State to apply, in cases of fraud involving Community funds, those provisions of its own criminal law which protect its own public funds.
I accept that we must always be very careful to ensure that we do not allow our system of criminal law to be extended so as to defeat or evade the principles which for centuries we have jealously guarded. In my view, the safeguards in the draft document are adequate, and the offences which these changes are designed to bring to account justify what is proposed.
Obviously, there has to be further discussion. Matters such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has just raised will have to be decided. But in principle we think that this is sensible. I end by congratulating the working party from the Nine member States, which started its work in 1972 and which has provided what I think may be the sensible solution to the problems which face us.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a very difficult debate for a layman, and I intervene in it with trepidation on that account. Nevertheless, the


matters with which the document deals are not matters which the lay Members of this House are entitled to treat as not concerning them. They are obviously of potentially profound importance, and that is one's, I do not say excuse, but justification for taking the risks attendant upon entering into what is obviously a legal thicket.
This document is on a different footing from most of those which we consider under the same Standing Order. In the case of most of those documents, at some stage in their gestation the Minister at the Box is entitled—it may be against his will and it may be against the will of many hon. Members—to say that our membership of the Community as it is constitutes a degree of obligation upon us to accept what is proposed in those documents, or to accept what is proposed should those documents clear the Council of Ministers. That, I understand, does not apply to this document.
First of all, there is nothing in the existing treaties which can be construed as obliging us a priori to accept these recommendations. Secondly, even if these recommendations were accepted by the Council of Ministers, Her Majesty's Government could do so only ad referendum in so far as a change in the law of this country was a precondition of our acceding to the new proposed treaties.
Here arises my first question to the Minister. In the event of the Council of Ministers accepting these or derivative proposals, would the necessary legislation be put through this House before there was a question of the treaty being ratified or of the necessary resolution under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act to adopt the treaty for the purposes of that Act? In other words, is the progression such that this House, when it comes to look at the implicit legislation, will be able to take an unprejudiced and unbounden view of what is proposed? I would be grateful if the Minister could lay out a little more clearly the sequence of events.
Then I would ask the Minister of State to clear up a little further what has been happening since these documents originated. The document before us, as addressed to the Council, is dated "Brussels, 18th August 1976", and the hon. Gentleman's explanatory memorandum is dated

21st February 1977. The memorandum reminds us, as indeed is stated in the document, that consultation of the European Assembly is, by the treaty, requisite for this purpose—mandatory. Has that consultation taken place? If so, what was the result of the consultation? Moreover, tutored by an earlier debate today, may one inquire what was the balance of opinion in the European Assembly in the course of that consultation, because it has come to our notice that some consultative conclusions have been arrived at by no means unanimously?
The document finally says that the Council
should act on these proposals before September 1978.
We should, I hope, assume that all those dates, like so many Community dates, have gone down the river, have been borne on down the stream of time. But could we have a new prospective time table, or, at any rate, a new prospective non-timetable—that is to say, an indication of when we may not yet expect to make renewed acquaintance with these proposals?
While I am referring to that item in the covering note of the document—I have already quoted the words
the council should act on these proposals
—I take it that that means that the Council should take these proposals into consideration, and if unanimously agreed upon, that recommendations should be made to the member States for the necessary procedures which would be required if a treaty were in fact to be made, signed and ratified.
Those are preliminary points—both, I think, fairly plain—to which I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would attend when he replies.
The point of greatest substance which strikes one in studying this document is that, like so much that emanates from the Community, it represents a further step towards the consolidation of the Community as a State, towards its recognition not as a co-operation of sovereign States but as a State in its own ight. In this connection I would refer to such sentences as that on page 4 of the document, where it says:
It was felt that an overall solution ensuring the enforcement of Community law as a whole must be sought.


What is this "Community law" to which constant reference is made throughout these proposals? Of course, one understands that membership of the Community entails upon the member States, by virtue of the treaties, and things done under the treaties, obligations. Those are obligations upon States. I can understand that that could be one meaning of "Community law". But, presumably, it is not with that meaning of Community law that these documents and the proposed treaties deal. So we must be concerned with Community law in so far as it gives rise to criminal proceedings, and, therefore, in so far as it is binding upon individuals.
If I am right so far, then I want to inquire what has changed since the position as we understood it when the European Communities Act was enacted in 1972. At that time—and I must confess that I have remained under the impression ever since— I believed that any obligations upon a person in this realm flowing from our membership of the European Economic Community, were, so far as he was concerned, a consequence of the law of this country—the law of this country as made either by Parliament, or under the authority of Parliament, or as a consequence of the embodiment in the law of this country of directly applicable, self-enacting enactments of the European Community. Whichever way it is, breaches of the law of the Community taking place inside this country must, so far as I understand, be breaches of the law of this realm deriving from the authority of Parliament.
Again, if I am correct at this subsequent stage I want to inquire in what respects, and how is it, that the law in the United Kingdom is unable to deal with offences against laws deriving from our membership of the Community. Where are the loopholes? How is the law in this country unable to deal with offences against Community rights or property? The layman, at any rate, would have supposed that if a person stole or otherwise misappropriated funds or assets which belong to the Community and committed that act in this country, he would already be in breach of the law of the realm, and that the existing law would be able to be applied to him.
Where, then, I ask, are the loopholes that this whole piece of alarming machinery is intended to fill? So far as many of us had supposed, our obligations here in this realm under the law, deriving from our membership of the Community, whether or not we liked it, were, in fact, enforceable by the law of the United Kingdom, and in so far as they were criminal, enforceable and punishable in the courts of the United Kingdom.
I understood from something which the Minister of State said that the answer to my question might be that there is no such loophole in the United Kingdom but there are loopholes in some of the other member States. I understood him to say that in some of the other member States, State property, for example, was dealt with differently under their law from other forms of property, so that it was necessary to assimilate, for their purposes, Community property, or the like, to State property. But that, so far as I am aware, is not the position in the United Kingdom.
So if the answer of the Minister et State is that there is no loophole in the United Kingdom but there are loopholes elsewhere, and, therefore, the Community is going to introduce new treaties to meet those loopholes in other territories, I believe that many of us would need a good deal of persuasion that we needed to alter our law in this country and to undertake unnecessary obligations for this country in order to stop loopholes which exist in other States.
So I should be grateful—and I think I am not alone in saying that—if the Minister of State could clarify this matter a good deal further.
I would then like to go on to the issue of extra-territoriality, as opposed to extradition, to which the Minister of State devoted a considerable part of his speech. As he said, territoriality is, though not entirely without exception, of the essence of our system of law; jurisdiction depends upon territory, upon the place of the offence. We are now, however, in this document, presented with the proposition that not merely occasionally but even regularly it may be necessary to resort to extra-territorial jurisdiction in order to enforce the law of the Community.
I read from one of the preambles of the proposed protocol which is on page 8


of the document. It is among the "whereases". It begins:
Considering that the criminal law of the Member States cannot usually guarantee the protection of the financial interests of the Community nor ensure effective punishment of infringements of the provisions of the treaties establishing the European Communities, of provisions adopted in pursuance of those treaties or of provisions laid down by Member States by law, regulation or administrative action for the implementation thereof".
I find, and I cannot be alone in this, that to be a staggering statement—that the criminal law of member States "cannot usually guarantee" all those things that I have read out. Even the Minister of State, in making the best case that could be made for the document he was laying before the House, referred only, so far as I heard him, to certain loopholes in some of the member States. That is a far cry from the comprehensive denial that at present there is "usually" the means of enforcing the law made by or under the Community or protecting the interests of the Community. We ought to need a great deal of satisfying that that condition precedent to the proposed protocol has any reality.
What seems to be deduced from that embracing and astonishing proposition is that it will be necessary, in most cases, for persons who are accused of prejudicing the financial interests of the Community in a criminal manner, or of committing offences of the other classes mentioned, not to be brought to book in the country and the State where that was done, but that they will be, so to speak, sent home for trial; that the jurisdiction will usually be transferred to the country of origin from the country where the offence was committed. That is a gross alteration of the underlying presumption in our own law, and it is one which requires extensive practical justification if we are to entertain it at all.
What I fear lies behind this is once again the whole philosophy of the working of the Community, as tending to the creation of a unitary State—and not merely a unitary State, but a unitary European State, and by that I mean a unitary Continental European State. For it is a concept not unkown on the Continent of Europe, though unknown to us since some unlamented provisions of the Poor Law were disposed of, that there is a presumption that a person will be

punished in his home territory, to which he is somehow attached. The sense of a person being in a manner tied—juridically tied—to his place of origin is a concept not at all unknown on the Continent. Indeed, a great system of law existed over a great part of the Continent to ensure that people did not leave their place of domicile without permission, and could be returned to their place of domicile at the will of the Government. That was the prevailing presumption throughout a great part of the Germanic territories on the Continent.
I wonder whether this notion of the Community—that to enforce Community law and to protect the interests of the country we have somehow to insist on a system of jurisdiction in the place of origin—is not connected with those deep prejudices and presumptions of an entirely different system of law from ours?
It has been only too obvious in what I have said to the House that this is a layman and not a lawyer speaking. But this is a political as well as a legal document. Everything which emanates from the EEC is political. There lies behind it a political will. The political will which lies behind this document is a political will which, at any rate upon first acquaintance, is repugnant to some of the most fundamental ideas entertained in this country. I hope that not only shall we—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman is nothing loth—be assisted further tonight by him in his concluding speech, but that before we get to the point at which the Council of Ministers is to take a decision on anything following from these documents there will be another and major debate in this House—on any showing this is a major subject—and that if that hurdle is crossed there will still be many opportunities for this House, as the guardian of the rights of the subject, to have an uninhibited opportunity to consider what is proposed and to decide whether to agree to it.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The funds collected and distributed within the EEC are so enormous that it is a matter of considerable importance that those who act dishonestly in relation to those funds should be apprehended and punished. Anyone would listen sympathetically to proposals that would ensure that


dishonest people did not escape when they had been the guardians of international public funds and had enriched themselves by the dishonest use of those funds, but there are matters which worry me and which I hope will be carefully considered in relation to these documents.
First, it seems to me that the proposals will create some doubt about where a particular offence or a particular individual should be tried. The home State appears to be preferred, but there are provisions whereby the State in which the offence is committed should also be able to try. When one is dealing with matters in half a dozen different States of the Community there could be almost a lottery in which six or seven different States have some claim to try the individual.
The difficulty with that is that one needs to know who will decide where the man will be tried. Will he have the right of election? Will he be able to apply to a judge and say "I do not want to be tried in France. I would rather be tried in England"? Will some police officer somewhere say "We have a choice here, boys. Let us get in touch with our opposite numbers in those other Community countries. They are much tougher on this sort of offence than we are. Let us send the case there. Let us ensure that there is no application from that other country which has a claim, or make sure there is a claim from that country which has a claim".
What about sentences? Suppose that a sentence in England is 10 years' maximum and the sentence, for example, in Denmark is five years' maximum. Suppose the gaol conditions are very different. It is a matter of enormous importance to the individual and perhaps also to the public interest where a person is tried, because the act of transfer in itself may alter substantially the length of imprisonment to which he is eventually sentenced. It seems that there will have to be some machinery for ensuring that there is no abuse and no caprice in the exercise of this new extended jurisdiction.
It is true that English judges have been trying to extend the principle of extraterritoriality as far as they can, because now that travel is easier one gets a situation in which a plot is hatched in Lon-

don but executed solely on the Continent. The idea that people can escape once they have got back to Britain and cleared the Continent is not acceptable to judges.
There has been a recent development in the criminal law to the effect that if there is virtually any connection with England in terms of the planning or execution of the offence, the English court shall be able to try it, but occasionally we come across a case in which a man comes back from the Continent and has got clear away with it, and nothing can be done. In future that will still be the position unless it is a Community offence, and we are to have two classes of people—those who commit offences on the Continent and get back to Britain but have not committed an offence in relation to the Community, and those who have committed an offence in relation to Community funds.
Two different laws will apply. In one case the man can be prosecuted in England, even though there is no nexus with England, because he is a citizen of the United Kingdom. In the other case he cannot be prosecuted, because although he is a citizen of this country the money he stole was from a bank and the people he defrauded were people not directly involved with the Community. That seems to me to indicate that there may be complaints that people are going to be dealt with very differently, according to whether the kind of fraud is a Community fraud or not. A man who obtains £50,000 by fraud may escape entirely because it is not a Community fraud and there is no extra-territorial jurisdiction, while a man who obtains £10,000 from the Community by fraud can be dealt with in this country because there is extra-territorial jurisdiction. That seems to me to be very strange.
One way of dealing with the situation would be to have common courts and common sentences for all Community offences and Community officials. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) saw the present proposals as leading to a Community law of its own, but I am not so certain that he is right, because these proposals seem to recognise that officials in the Community are on loan from their respective countries and are still controlled from afar by the country which has sent them into Community


service, and when they commit an offence the first claim for trying them is with their own country of origin.
It is because there is no recognition that the Community is an independent international State that all these anomalies arise, or are likely to arise, of different sentences for the same offence according to where a man is tried. Three men working side by side in Brussels—a Frenchman, a Belgian and an Englishman—can join in committing the same fraud and the Englishman can come back to this country and receive a sentence of five years, the Belgian can stay where he is and get seven years, and the Frenchman can get 10 years, with everything else exactly the same.
That seems to me to be rather strange. The way round it, which would be anathema to the right hon. Member for Down, South, is that the Community should have its own courts, its own prisons and its own prison sentences, with its own maxima. Then we would have an international institution setting itself up as an international State. But because that is anathema to so many people in this House we cannot do that. The result is that we shall have the anomalies to which the right hon. Gentleman objects. Everyone is to be dealt with differently because the EEC is not behaving as an international State of its own. These proposals give rise to anomalies. They are very complicated, and I hope that the Government will think about the matter very carefully before agreeing to any changes.
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Mr. M. Havers) that the House should have an opportunity for a full-scale debate on the implications of these documents, but if we look around we see that many hon. Members are daunted by the technical complexity of the legal concepts involved, and although the subject deserves a full-scale debate one wonders how many hon. Members would turn up and participate.
This is one of those cases in which the lack of research assistance for non-lawyer Members has a serious effect on our ability to deal with this sort of proposal. It is certainly a complex matter, and I hope that what has been said in the debate will enable the Government to

have additional thoughts on where we are going with these proposals.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not share the fears of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Community is trying to impose upon us a unitary State with a unitary system of criminal justice. If it were proposing to do that, the safeguards that give priority to the home countries would not have been included in the proposals and efforts would have been made to create Community offences and to interfere with the traditional safeguards in individual countries' laws of evidence and procedures as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) pointed out was not the case.
However, I am puzzled by the proceedings concerning these proposals. Although I am a practising criminal lawyer, I must confess to speaking in this debate with as much trepidation—possibly a lot more—as was felt by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
I appreciate the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), but I do not agree that they cause great problems. The essence of the second phase of the proposals is merely to extend the extra-territoriality—I think that I am the first hon. Member to get that out in one go—in respect of the offences that will be applicable to Community servants. I do not think that the anomalies that are thereby created need cause us any great concern. The alternative to the extra-territoriality proposals are the ordinary processes of extradition, and I do not see people escaping from the net if they have committed criminal offences in various parts of Europe or elsewhere.
Equally, the question of disparity of sentences for the same offence is no different under these proposed rules from that at present. A country may be harsher in the imposition of penalties than are other countries. It is not a valid reason for objecting to the broad scope of these proposals to say that this disparity may continue.

Mr. Powell: But surely for an offence committed, let us say, in Brussels under the extra-territoriality provisions there


could be different punishments in England, France and Italy?

Mr. Lawrence: Yes, but there could be different punishments now. These proposals do not affect the possibility of the disparity of sentences which might be imposed. In eny event there is often now a disparity in sentences within our own jurisdiction according to the circumstances of the individual being sentenced.

Mr. Edward Lyons: At present the offence committed by a British official in Belgium will be tried in Belgium, but under these proposals he will normally, but not always, be brought back for trial in the United Kingdom. That will mean to the official a difference in procedures and quite possibly in sentence.

Mr. Lawrence: Even if the hon. and learned Gentleman is theoretically right, it is inconceivable that the countries will not get together to make some effort to harmonise the sentences that they will impose for the offences that are envisaged in the proposals. I see nothing wrong with that. If it is important to eliminate the disparity of sentence, that is probably the most just way of going about it. It is somewhat unrealistic to suppose that someone would receive severely disparate sentences in different countries, even though that would not necessarily be to change the situation from that which now exists.
I turn to the two matters upon which I rose to address the House and upon which I should like the assistance of the Minister of State. I am frankly puzzled. We read in the Select Committee's report that the attention of the House is invited to the exceptional nature of the proposals. The Minister has asked the House to express a view about the proposals. How is it possible for us to express views other than in the most unsubstantial way? I say that without offence to the hon. and learned Members who have spoken. Where do we look for advice on the problems that the proposals pose?
If we were to ask as the Select Committee invites us, "How necessary are these changes?", what evidence is there before us that will help us to give an answer? What documents tell us how necessary it is for the countries of Europe to accord together to bring about these

changes? The Select Committee invites us to consider what alternative proposals there may be that might be better than the proposals laid down in the documents before us. But where do we look for assistance in making such a judgment? Why have these proposals been chosen? Surely we are entitled to ask. Where shall we find the advice? Where is it written that a number of wise and learned lawyers from all the countries concerned came together to examine these issues?
When we consider changes of the law in this place we normally have before us the findings of the Law Commission or the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Normally a learned body of lawyers will have carried out investigations. The Departments of State will have produced White Papers containing alternative arguments, and the facts and statistics will be well known. How are we able to accept the invocation of the Select Committee on these proposals? If we ask "What exactly are the implications of a reference to the European Court of Justice in serious criminal cases where the accused is already in custody before conviction?", which is another of the issues that we are invited to consider, how will my hon. and learned Friends or any hon. Member know the exact nature of the implications? We do not know whether they have been examined or where to find the results of the examinations.
I do not wish to labour that or any other argument, but it is a source of puzzlement to me that we can be expected to express a view without having information or the access to information gained by those who have given consideration to these matters. I assume that others have considered the matter. I assume that the proposals have not merely come off the top of the head of a Commissioner. I assume that a body of learned men drafted these provisions and that they thought that they were necessary.
That brings me to my second point. It is a matter to which I referred in the question that I asked the Minister during his deliberations. Who speaks for us in these matters? Who watches over the interests of Great Britain in legal matters which are being discussed in the European Community? Is it the Home Secretary? The Minister of State from


the Home Office introduced the debate. But is it the Home Secretary himself? Is it the Minister of State who negotiates with Ministers of Justice from other countries? Is it a civil servant? Is it the Attorney-General? If he is involved, why is he not here?
About seven years ago my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) chaired a committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. That committee had the foresight to see that when we went into the European Community and legal changes and developments became necessary, it was important that this country should be represented by a Minister who was answerable to the House—a Law Officer who was learned in the law, who fully understood the ramifications, and who did not just take advice from civil servants. That committee proposed the resuscitation of a third Law Officer. This country once enjoyed the existence of that office and the Law Officer was called the Queen's Advocate.
Now that we are involved in intricate legal developments the time has come for us to consider in the House, or if that is not necessary, for the Government to consider, the creation of a third Law Officer to go to Brussels, Luxembourg and The Hague on our behalf to assist, to take decisions for Britain and to defend the interests of Britain in legal matters which arise.

Mr. George Thompson: In the United Kingdom we have several jurisdictions. Therefore it would not be appropriate for only an English Law Officer to be involved. What thoughts has the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the involvement of Her Majesty's Advocate, who is present tonight and who is one of our Scottish Law Officers?

Mr. Lawrence: I concede the complications of the dual system. I suppose that it follows from that that the Lord Advocate, either as an assistant to the United Kingdom's legal representative or, perhaps even in his own right, if the matters were closely related to Scotland, should fulfil the duty which I suggest should be fulfilled by a trained legal officer in Europe.
The first matter about which I have spoken causes me puzzlement. The

second matter causes me to provoke the Minister, the Government and perhaps my hon. and learned Friends into considering the present unsatisfactory situation. Faceless persons appear to be conducting negotiations on behalf of Britain. They are persons who are not perhaps answerable to this House and whose names are not well known. It might be better for Britain's interests if the position of a third Law Officer such as the Queen's Advocate were revived.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: This is indeed an area in which any unlearned Member of this House certainly fears to tread. Nevertheless, I do not think that it would be right for laymen to disregard altogether what is happening or to fail to ask the Minister a few questions in order to enlighten us further.
My first anxiety about these proposals arises from the assurances which we were constantly given in the earlier debates about EEC membership, in White Papers, in ministerial speeches and elsewhere, that what ever else this House and this country was surrendering in sovereignty, the criminal law would not be infringed or invaded by the EEC if we were to join. Certainly at the time of the referendum that assurance was constantly repeated. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would not suggest that at the time of the referendum the British public was told that EEC membership involved changes in our criminal law, and perhaps in the procedure of our criminal law.
It seems to me, therefore—and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he agrees—that it would amount to something very like another breach in one of the fundamental pledges given at the time of entry if in order to accommodate the EEC any material changes were made in our criminal law and our criminal law procedure.
Another anxiety which one inevitably has, as a result of these unforeseen intrusions into areas of our affairs which it was thought would be exempt from them, is that a sort of creeping process is going on by which gradually one area of the law, and one area after another of our national policy and national affairs, is being invaded in a fashion which had not hitherto been foreseen. I believe that those anxieties are real. Therefore I think


that we should be told how these proposals fit in with the assurances which we have constantly been given.
Perhaps I might ask the Minister, since he is so much more learned than I, exactly why it is that these proposals are necessary at all. I had supposed, as a layman—I say this because both the documents and the Minister have spoken of fraud as being the main occasion for these propositions—that if I committed a fraud against Imperial Chemical Industries, against the Surrey County Cricket Club, or, indeed, against the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons, I should be liable to legal criminal proceedings of some kind. I had supposed that if I committed a similar fraud against the European Community in one of its buildings in Kensington Palace Gardens, or indeed elsewhere, I would be liable in an exactly similar way.
What are these offences which some of us might commit against the Community which are not at present offences under our ordinary British criminal law but which apparently would be if these proposals were implemented? I may be wrong, but I think it is a question which some people would ask and which has not hitherto been very clearly answered.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend may make a little more clear what is the procedure proposed from now on. I understood him to say that before any changes made in our law—and, incidentally, we are discussing an amendment to the Treaty of Rome, as I understand it, therefore this is a serious material matter—could be given legal effect in this country, further enactment would be necessary by this House.
Will this involve full legislation? Will it involve a normal Bill before the House with Second Reading, Committee, Report stages and all the rest? I would have thought that that would have been particularly justifiable, because these are certainly complex matters in which a full and detailed examination cannot possibly be given in one debate lasting a couple of hours. I think that all of us, whether we are lawyers or laymen, would agree with that. Or is it merely proposed, as has happened before, that some rather obscure instrument called a "Definition of Treaties Order", or some-

thing of that kind, will appear on the Order Paper at 10 o'clock, or even later without being clearly designated on the Order Paper, which the Government hope will go through on the nod with many hon. Members not understanding precisely what are its effects.
I hope that we are not proposing to amend the criminal law of this country by any sort of procedure of that kind. Therefore, it would be valuable if we could learn from the Minister exactly what is proposed and what opportunity this House will be given for taking the final decision arising out of these proposals.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: If these documents appear excessively complicated, the Commission of the EEC has only itself to blame. They are wrapped up in the sort of legalistic European jargon that we have come to associate with all the documents that emanate from the EEC, and they conceal what is substantially a comparatively simple proposition.
With great respect to those hon. Members who have previously spoken, I do not believe that the problem is nearly as difficult or complicated as has been suggested. It is certainly not as new as has been suggested. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and the queries which he made, of a substantive and fundamental character, with regard to the documents. Basically we are dealing here only with the realm of extradition law and the law of extra-territorial jurisdiction. We are dealing with an institution in Europe which, created by treaty, has a number of servants who live and operate in different parts of Western Europe, who travel in the area of the European Community and whose domicile and countries of origin may be in different parts of Western Europe. That gives the situation a rather special character, but, fundamentally, the problems that arise from that situation are not so very different from the problems that we have encountered previously when we have had cross-jurisdictional matters of this kind.
It matters not whether a document is properly called a protocol or an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. As I understand it, a treaty will have to be


concluded, to which Britain will have to adhere, which will require legislation of some sort in this House. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, no treaty is self-enacting. I say "legislation of some sort", because probably it will have to be an order in council under the Extradition Act 1870. When that is done, no doubt the provision of the Extradition Act will be held to apply to the provisions of the treaty, just as they apply to the extradition treaties that we now have with each of the EEC member States.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member said rightly that there are employees of the Community who live and work in one or another part of Western Europe. Surely that also applies to NATO and the OECD. I suppose that frauds have been committed against them, but no provisions or alterations to our criminal law were thought to be necessary as a result of the creation of NATO or any other international organisation.

Mr. Stanbrook: That illustrates my point. We are not dealing with any fundamental difference. There are, in effect, special provisions for NATO, under the Visiting Forces Act, for example. Those provisions do not apply outside NATO. What we are dealing with here will be, in practice, an amendment to the extradition provisions which operate between Britain and the other EEC members. In each case the list of extradition crimes will be amended to include certain offences, and we shall have the same problems about disparity of punishments or different systems of law as we have at present in extradition cases.
With extradition, we have to take account of the law of the foreign country, our own law, and the terms of the treaty itself. All those things bear upon the particular offence and the trial of it. Therefore, I see no greater complication than those that arise already from our extradition law, which, goodness knows, is already complicated enough.
The same problem applies in the extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction. There is nothing new here. We face the same difficulties as we have in the past. For example, we already have provisions with the Republic of Deland for the trial of offences committed in Northern Ireland to be held in the Republic. This

is done under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act. It is perfectly true that that Act has not worked, but that is largely because of a lack of will on the part of the Government of the Republic. The point is that the provisions are there and the machinery is there. The jurisdictional problem has been overcome, and that Act would be effective if the Government of the Republic had the will to make it so.
The same thing applies, under the Tokyo Convention Act, with terrorist offences. Under this Act, when the aircraft in which the offence has occurred lands in a country, that country has jurisdiction over the offence, even though that offence may have been committed well outside its own territorial jurisdiction, and even though the flag of the State in which the aircraft is registered might be that of a third country. These are all jurisdictional problems. In other words, our courts are not unfamiliar with these difficulties. They can seek the assistance of the appropriate statute tinder British law.
We also exercise jurisdiction over British subjects who commit certain offences abroad. The Home Office memorandum refers to some of these—for example, murder, offences under the Official Secrets Act, and terrorism. These ate all cases in which British courts are entitled to assume jurisdiction even though the offence was committed abroad.
Although we must necessarily defer to the fears that have been expressed by hon. Members who do not care very much for the EEC, I do not see that their fears can be justified on this occasion. What is proposed is simply an extension to cover cases arising in future and which, for the purpose of good relations between neighbours, should have been provided for in any event.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. John: I shall seek to summarise the debate and try to answer the large number of questions that have been put to me.
I am a little disappointed that, apart from a few contributions, hon. Members have dealt with the mechanics of the matter and what will happen later rather than with what is being dealt with now. However, I suppose that, in the nature


of things, that is inevitable. The Government obtain little guidance when hon. Members make such points, but since they have been put, I shall seek to answer them.
Let me state again the intention of the law. This document is aimed at the multinational fraud, in which people in many different countries perpetrate crime. This type of activity would not have been contemplated very easily half a century ago, but it is a fact today. This happens in frauds involving banks as well as other frauds.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) could not have been listening to me with his normal care, because I thought I had made it dear at the beginning of the debate that it is possible for serious offences under the provisions of the treaties to go unpunished in certain member States, although our law does not have that defect. I hope that that is clear beyond peradventure.
In countries containing civil courts there are problems arising from the question whether extradition and surrender under a constitution law are possible. We have only to recall the row that blew up between Germany and Italy not long ago over a German war prisoner who, under the terms of the Italian constitution, could not be surrendered. He was in an Italian hospital, from which he somehow escaped. I am not saying that there is a great lacuna in the present law, but the countries of the Nine had discussed the subject of Community frauds and have put forward tentative proposals for further discussion in the Community on the best way to tackle the problem.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked about the Queen's Advocate. At the stage that we have reached, which is a preliminary examination of the law, it is the job of officials to examine the law in question and to put forward formal proposals. But those proposals have to be scrutinised by the European Parliament and they have also to be approved by Ministers. When that process takes places, it is the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, with the Law Officers, who, as the hon. Gentleman put it, struggle or fight for Britain.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

Mr. John: I do not think that I should give way on this point. The matter is so clear that it would be an abuse of the House if I were to allow the hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary point to me. It will be the members of the Government, including the Law Officers, who will be fighting for Britain. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt on that score.
I wish now to deal with the list of questions put to me by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Some of his points tie in with the matters put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, and I shall answer some of the points together. Both asked how this provision will be effected. Until we see the scope and nature of the amendments we cannot give a definite answer. The view put forward by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was probably right. I undertake that before ratification of the treaty the House will be given a further opportunity to consider the matter.
It has considered it at a preliminary stage and I undertake now that when the matter is brought to greater certainty the House will have an opportunity to consider it before it is ratified, so that we are not presented, as the right hon. Member thinks, with something that is immutable even before the discussion takes place.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend is not able to assure us that there will be an opportunity for the full process of legislation.

Mr. John: I cannot give that assurance at the moment, but this matter will involve legislation and that will give hon. Members an opportunity of making their points known.
Let me deal with what has happened since the document was introduced. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, and as I tried to anticipate in my opening remarks, there has been a considerable gap between the initial introduction and the present day, during which very little seems to have happened.
Since my signature was appended to the Home Office memorandum on the subject there has been a Select Committee of the other place, which examined the matter, and there was a debate in the


other place last November. A Select Committee of this House considered it. and today we are debating it. But the European Assembly, which is charged with giving an opinion on the matter—this is what the right hon. Gentleman meant by consultation—has not yet rendered that opinion. There is therefore no touchstone by which we can measure the acceptability or otherwise of that point at this stage.
I reiterate that this issue involves the incorporation of international law, and I do not think that it means consolidation into a supra-national State. The right hon. Gentleman asked me in what way the United Kingdom is not able to deal with this issue at the moment. As I have said, in my view there is no gap in the law and there is no need to alter the basis of our law—which is what the right hon. Gentleman said—or the protection of the procedures in order to accommodate it. During the remaining protracted discussions on this matter the Government will be absolutely clear, in defending the point, that that protection will remain. We are not likely—nor, I assume, is any right hon. or hon. Gentleman—to discard the protections and procedures of the law that has been built up in both countries under separate jurisdictions over many years.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) mentioned the question of uncertainty about the venue of trial. Of course, there is no election on the part of a person in this country by which he can choose. If the country where the crime was committed applies for extradition, that application must go through the extradition processes. If that country seeks a transfer of jurisdiction by which it requests a State to try the matter in its own country, the State in question may or may not accede to that request. I re-emphasise that the State to which application is made is not bound to do so, but it must give reasons if it refuses.
We believe that the question of the most suitable place of extradition is one of the points that should be clarified, along with the question of how serious need to be the offences for which a transfer of jurisdiction is requested. The object is to avoid being flooded with a great deal of triviality in terms of frauds, which would not redound to the credit

of any particular person concerned. The frauds that concern extradition and transfer of jurisdiction are those that are committed in one country when the national is in another country.
The hon. Member for Burton asked two questions. One was: what evidence have we to go on? We have the evidence, first, of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). That Committee devoted some attention to this matter. Secondly, we have a more detailed Select Committee report from the other place, if the hon. Gentleman had cared to read it. Indeed, if he had read the debate that took place in the House of Lords in November 1977, he would have read the speech by Lord Diplock, which was a masterpiece of clarity on the subject.
The proposal for dealing with defaulting officials does not present a large problem. The problem of Community funds is much larger.
The hon. Gentleman then asked: who negotiates? I think that I have already dealt with that matter. I have said that it is for Minister to negotiate. Who deals with this subject, if and when it becomes an Act of Parliament here, is a matter of jurisdiction to be decided at a later date. I do not think that need concern us when we are considering the merits of the proposals.

Mr. Lawrence: As the Minister of State has mentioned the matter twice, perhaps he now considers it important enough to give way. I notice that the explanatory memorandum on two occasions refers to a conference of representatives of the Governments of the member States deliberating on the progress report. It then refers to Ministers of Justice. Whom do we send when a committee of Ministers of Justice is considering the various stages of such a document?

Mr. John: Sometimes my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate attends councils of Ministers of Justice. On one occasion I almost got there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is also involved in the Ministers of Justice conference. There is no doubt that this country is adequately represented at a proper level.
I have answered some of the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North in dealing with other matters. He asked for an assurance that we would not change our criminal law which was made at the time of the referendum and otherwise. I reiterate, in the way that I started and in the way that the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) also started, that these proposals do not involve changes in our law, or in our practice. It will be the Government's task during the negotiations to ensure that British interests are protected. That is a task that we intend to discharge.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/2043/76 on Criminal Law.

ANCILLARY DENTAL WORKERS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS

9.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I beg to move,
That the draft Ancillary Dental Workers (Amendment) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
These regulations, as drafted by the General Dental Council, have been approved by the Privy Council under Section 41(9) of the Dentists Act 1957, and on behalf of the Privy Council I now commend them to the House. They amend the Ancillary Dental Workers Regulations 1968, as amended in 1974. These regulations provided for the setting up of rolls of ancillary dental workers. They also specified the kinds of work that dental hygienists and dental auxiliaries might undertake—scaling, polishing, applying prophylactic materials, giving oral hygiene advice, and, in the case of auxiliaries, extracting deciduous teeth and doing simple fillings.
The changes proposed are to increase at the end of this year the fee for first enrolment to £4 and the annual fee for retention of a name on the rolls to £3. The fee for first enrolment has stood at £2 since 1968, and the fee for retention was last increased from its 1968 figure of £1 to £1·50 in 1974. The Privy Council is of the opinion that the proposed fees are justified by changes in circumstances which have taken place. The income from enrolment and retention fees helps the General Dental Council to meet the administrative costs of maintaining the rolls of dental auxiliaries and dental hygienists, exercising supervision of training and examinations and generally of safeguarding the public by the maintenance of standards of practice.
When I say that in 1977 the General Dental Council's costs directly related to ancillary dental workers were estimated to be £6,400, and that total income of the Council from the proposed amended fees in 1979 is expected to amount to less than £6,000, the House will appreciate that the proposals are modest in character. They are such as are necessary to assist the General Dental Council to meet rising costs in carrying out its statutory


functions in regard to ancillary dental workers.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: In looking through some of the documentation on the background to ancillary dental workers, I came across a familiar if rather dry description of a sensation that many people feel when approaching the dentist:
The fear of pain during a dental appointment is a common cause for anxiety both in the Research Dental Care Unit and elsewhere. This anxiety does not seem to lessen markedly with time for it was stated as a reason for feeling tense by over half the patients at all the courses of treatment.
I think that that is a common experience that all hon. Members have felt when approaching their dentist, and although tonight I am not expecting to suffer any pain, I must admit to feeling slightly tense because I am speaking from a slightly unfamiliar position. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to have the opportunity of raising a number of points on this Statutory Instrument, which covers the operation of ancillary dental workers.
This is not least because the work of ancillary dental workers—and of dentists generally—is rarely discussed on the Floor of the House. Looking back to previous debates, I see that the last reference was in February 1974, when the minds of most hon. Members were on things other than the work of dentists. Before that, one has to go back to 15th February 1968. In that debate reference is made to the previous debate, which occurred in November 1955. By that cycle of events, it will be 1988 or 1990 before we debate dentists and dental ancillaries again, and I am glad to have the opportunity to raise one or two points with the Under-Secretary of State tonight in relation to the future role of the dental ancillary workers.
I begin with a familiar and personal complaint about the explanatory notes which form part of Statutory Instruments. This is something that we have raised before, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken the point, particularly in regard, for example, to the Statutory Instrument dealing with overlapping social security benefits. But here we have a four-line note which does little other than repeat what is clearly expressed in the text, with the exception that it refers

to the amount of the fee prior to the proposed increase. I believe that if Statutory Instruments are to catch the imagination of more hon. Members, this sections needs to be made more explanatory as opposed to merely descriptive of what has gone before.
I understand that there are two classes of ancillary workers—the hygienists, now numbering about 1,505, and the dental auxiliaries, numbering about 500. The numbers are increasing in the case of the hygienists by about 90 per annum and in the case of the dental auxiliaries by about 30 per annum. By my calculation, it would seem that, from the proposed increases of fees in this Statutory Instrument, the increased income will be about £2,500 rather than the £6,000 to which the hon. Gentleman referred—namely, £2 times 120—the number of additions to the register and £1·50 times 1,500—the number of names retained on it. It seems to me that in either case, as the hon. Gentleman says, the amount of fee is modest.
In view of the costs and the administrative time and difficulties that must be involved in bringing forward this Statutory Instrument, one wonders whether the purpose would not be better served either by postponing it until a time when a larger increase could be undertaken or, indeed, by structuring the increase in fees in a different way.
In this context, I refer to the relationship of the fees charged to the ancillary workers as opposed to the full dentists themselves. Whereas on the first registration a dentist is charged £7 and an ancillary is charged £4—a ratio of about 2:1—for retention on the register the dentist is charged £22 and the ancillary is charged only £3—a ratio of about 7:1. In terms of restoration to the register—this is admittedly a problem of the least significant category—the ratio is 5:1. It seems that there could be a means of either improving the revenue or, indeed, of making the relationships between the registration fees charged to the two classes of dental practitioners more directly comparable.
I turn from that to one or two broader issues that lie behind the proposal to increase the fees. I turn, first, to the question of preventive medicine. In a debate about three weeks ago on the


Select Committee report and the Government's response, "Prevention and Health", a great deal of stress was placed on the need for preventive dental care. This is important in the context of what we are discussing tonight, since the ancillary dental workers, both auxiliaries and hygienists, are in the forefront of preventive dentistry, and were, as the Minister stated, set up with this purpose in mind.
In the Select Committee's report, recommendation 72, on page 66, was that more dental hygienists should be trained and employed. But the response of the Government to this, in their reply on recommendation 38, was only category B, which means "accepted with reservations". I think that it would be interesting for us to know a little bit more about the way in which matters are proceeding in the implementation of that recommendation.
Secondly, there is only one dental auxiliary school in the country, which, I understand, is at New Cross in London. It has a smallish output and a fairly high wastage of students. I understand that this has been explained by the fact that most of the trainees there are girls of the age of 18 to 20, to whom the social attractions of London often prove more compelling than the dentist's treatment room.
But there has been, as I understand it, a recommendation by the Court Committee that two further auxiliary dental schools be established. It would be useful if the Government would let us know what progress, if any, is being made on that proposal, for it is patently unsatisfactory for us to discuss this Statutory Instrument, which concerns the basic regulations covering ancillaries, without knowing anything about future Government plans in this field.
If that is one side of the equation, the other side is of course, the cost side—the cost of doing nothing. Parliamentary Questions have revealed that dental disease is now estimated to cost 600,000 working days per annum and a loss of production of about £3 million, and that only three adults in 1,000 have a full set of natural teeth. Then there is that statistical marvel, with which I am particularly entranced, the "average English-

man" who has no teeth by the time he is 42.
I might be tempted, in that context, to say that the Minister is abnormal—though, of course, only in a statistically dental sense. Nevertheless, underlying that remark there is the important point of the Government's attitude with regard to dental ancillaries in relation to their preventive role in the community.
I turn now to a second area and ask the Minister whether the Statutory Instrument presages any changes in the position of dental ancillaries. First, some concern has been expressed by the dental profession at a possible lowering of standards as a result of the extension of the role of the dental ancillary worker.
I understand that the dental auxiliaries are keen to change their title to "dental therapists"—presumably believing this to be a more highly prestigious professional name. At the same time, will the severe restraints on auxiliaries, some of which the Minister mentioned—the fact that they are restricted to local authority or hospital service and cannot go into general dental practice—be loosened, changed or amended in any way? I think that the dental profession has expressed some concern on this matter, and the Minister has an opportunity tonight to confirm its fears or to calm them as the case may be.
At the same time, there is a changing role for dentists in the community, and I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the way in which the future of ancillaries will take that into account. The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe has produced a pamphlet entitled "Implications for the Training of Dentists and Dental Auxiliary Personnel". Perhaps I may quote briefly from two parts of that document. It says:
The dentist, having received prolonged and expensive training, spends much of his professional life carrying out semi-skilled procedures and soon finds himself, through lack of time or experience, unable to carry out the treatment or to give the advice that many of his patients require and that he has been trained to provide.
Elsewhere, the pamphlet says:
In few, if any, dental schools are undergraduates trained to utilise fully the assistance of dental auxiliary personnel. They are trained to operate with the minimum of auxiliary assistance of any kind. The oral health of the


community can be attained through the treatment and education of the individual. Consequently, undergraduate training is oriented towards treatment of the individual patient, which makes such heavy demands of the dentist that the wider objectives of community health tend to be lost sight of. It is desirable that, in addition to training an undergraduate in his special subject, he should also be trained as part of a wider unit comprising different personnel concerned with the elimination and prevention of dental disease. This should be a team approach.
Also, within the profession itself, there seems to be a considerable shift of attitude, because in the examination of various expert witnesses by the Select Committee, as is made clear in its report, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) asked Professor Curson, professor of consultative dentistry at King's College dental school, what the attitude of members of the profession was towards hygienists and whether they would be prepared, particularly those of the old school, to take in more hygienists and auxiliaries. Professor Curson replied:
Inevitably there should be some of the old school who would continue like this"—
that is, to ignore them—
but I think on the whole the profession, particularly the younger members, for example our own students, look to hygienists for health. They like to co-operate with them in many ways. Most of the young people would welcome it, the young graduates, and I think the vast majority of dental practitioners would welcome this assistance.
In the light of changing attitudes in terms of research and in the profession, I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Statutory Instrument takes us into areas which are likely to reflect some of the changes that I have mentioned.
The third area of concern is in the general effectiveness of dental ancillary workers. Professor Allred from the experimental dental care project, has produced a series of essays, which I think has gone to the Department, entitled "Assessment of Quality of Dental Care." The professor has produced a number of statistics concerning the relative cost of using auxiliaries as opposed to dentists, which he assesses as costing 3·6p per minute as opposed to 10p per minute. It would be helpful to know whether those are figures on which the Minister is basing his policy developments.
I come next to the question of the effectiveness and results of auxiliary care. An article by Mr. Sutcliffe in the British Dental Journal entitled "Dental Auxiliaries—a method of measuring their clinical usefulness" suffered from a grave weakness in that it covered only one dentist working with one auxiliary. It showed a 64 per cent. increase in the number of patients seen each day. I should like the Minister to say whether his Department is looking at any other studies and any other bases on which the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries is being measured.
Finally, there is the question of better data to cover the effectiveness of treatment. Again, I turn briefly to the Select Committee's report. Professor Curson gave an interesting example when he was questioned on the measurement of the effectiveness of preventive dentistry. In answer to a question he said that he could not say precisely what was required, but added:
It is not criticism of the Board itself
—that is, the Dental Estimates Board—
but a number of years ago they reorganised the method of accounting and they established a very large computer system for recording all the work that was done. At the time I did know the gentleman concerned and in my view it is a great pity that we do not know from the Dental Estimates Board how many people were treated, we cannot identify from the Dental Estimates Board how long any particular treatment lasts. They make an ad hoc assessment by a random sample method but it would have been so easy at the time —and it may be impossible now—to have identified patients on particular courses of treatment.
Again, in considering the broader issue of dental auxiliaries and ancillaries generally, and the future of that body of workers, could the Minister not see whether he can find a way of improving the quality and extent of the knowledge and the statistics on which we are basing our decision tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): If the hon. Gentleman would take a little advice from the Chair in the kindest possible way, he should relate this question to the matter of fees. It would bring him nicely back into order on this subject.

Mr. Hodgson: I am just coming to my conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to draw the Under-Secretary's


attention to the fact that in considering the increase of fees, which we are doing tonight, we have to consider the effectiveness of dental ancillaries, and we might wish to alter the fees dramatically if we felt that this important body of workers was not making a satisfactory and useful contribution to the dental care of the nation and to preventive dentistry generally.
In conclusion, I have asked the Minister a good many questions about his plans for the ancillary dental profession, some of which he may be unable to answer straight away. But we are discussing an important issue tonight, for by any standards, dentists need more help—first, help in the practice of preventive dentistry and, secondly, help in providing treatment. Not only must the care be effective; it must be acceptable to both providers and patients. There must be job satisfaction for the personnel and an opportunity for them to realise their ambitions. It is in pursuit of this triple objective—effective care, job satisfaction and career opportunity—that I raise these points tonight.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Deakins: With permission, I would like to respond to the debate. Perhaps I could begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) on his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench. I know how difficult these occasions can be because not long ago I was performing that very role. I know how difficult it is to make such a speech on such a very narrowly constructed motion. I remember on one occasion being pulled up two or three times within ten minutes by one of your predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for straying beyond the bounds of order. I must confess that I was bemused and did not understand what I was doing wrong until it was explained to me afterwards.
Without straying beyond the bounds of your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that I can reply briefly to the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. First, the explanatory note is short because the regulations themselves are extremely short, perhaps substituting two or three figures for others in the main regulations. While I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to have a rather

longer background note, what he is asking for is not so much an explanatory note on the regulations, because that must be done by the construction of the regulations. It cannot go beyond what is contained in them.
I believe that the hon. Member wants the kind of background note that Ministers have. Having been a Back Bencher for a long time, and still being one at heart, I see no reason why for those who are interested we could not make available a longer background note. I can assure him that when we have had debates upstairs in Committee I have always bent over backwards to provide as much background information as possible to hon. Gentleman so that a better informed debate could result, in the interests of both Government and Opposition.
The hon. Member's second point was whether these regulations should be brought in now or whether they should be postponed until there could be a larger increase. My feeling is that they have already been delayed in the sense that the figures have not been increased for four years, and this in a time of a fair amount of inflation. I feel that the General Dental Council has been very modest in its requirement.
As I explained, the Council has kept the extra income that it will get from these regulations well in line with its expected expenditure in 1979. Had the Council delayed, a bigger increase might have been necessary, and I am not sure that such an increase for dental hygienists and ancillary workers would have been a good thing because their pay scales, although reasonable, are not extravagant and we must bear in mind their financial position when considering the level to which we should increase fees. The ratio of these fees to dental fees is a matter for the GDC, and I am sure that it will take note of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
On the training of dental hygienists, we have replied to recommendation 38 of the Expenditure Committee in our White Paper. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 125 and 126. I have the details here, but I do not want to trespass on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman asked about changes in the role of ancillary dental workers. He should be aware that the initiative for any changes in function must come from the profession. We are dealing with a skilled profession, the members of which regulate their own practices and discipline. We act in these circumstances almost as a rubber stamp. I hate to describe the House in that way, but we are asked only to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, we would seriously consider any proposal on which there was a consensus, but it would be for the GDC to draft amendments to the regulations concerning functions.
I accept that ancillary workers have a role, but here again we are up against the difficulty that dentists are independent contractors and not employees of the NHS, the Government, my Department or anyone else. It is up to them whether they employ dental hygienists and which duties, within the provisions of the Dentists Act, are allotted to them.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the regulations and I hope that the House will approve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ancillary Dental Workers (Amendment) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

PETITION

Chemists (NHS Prescriptions)

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Jim Lester: With permission, I beg to present a petition on behalf of the chemists of England and Wales. The fact that 1 million people have signed the petition in less than four weeks indicates the value placed on their services and the concern felt over the current situation which will be debated tomorrow. The petition reads:
'To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Sheweth—(1) that there are approximately 10,000 chemists engaged in dispensing National Health Service prescriptions throughout England and Wales;

(2) that their Representatives have been unable despite two years of negotiation to agree with the Secretary of State for Social Services on a profit margin for dispensing National Health Service prescriptions.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will support your Petitioners in their desire that the question of the net profit margin of chemists for dispensing National Health Service prescriptions be submitted to arbitration.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.'

To lie upon the Table.

HOSPITAL BEDS (BOURNEMOUTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

9.44 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) on bringing to the House the petition which he has just presented. On behalf of the pharmacists in my constituency, I endorse every word that my hon. Friend said about the strength of feeling which he has so adequately represented. Those who have been responsible for organising the petition and collecting the signatures have done extremely well. They are to be congratulated on having amassed so many names and on having made clear to us in the House, and hopefully to the Government, too, what action needs to be taken in the interests of the pharmacists of England and Wales.
Before the House adjourns I wish to draw attention to a matter of considerable importance to the people of Bournemouth—the shortage of hospital beds in that area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) will have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support what I say.
There is a serious shortage of hospital beds in the Bournemouth area. That is, however, not a new situation. It has existed for some years. I have seen the lists kept by one consultant that give details of every patient who was waiting on the emergency bed service for over 48 hours during the past three years to four years. It happens—this is not to


dramatise but to make a point of fact—that some of the patients died before they were found a bed in hospital.
The consultants in the Bournemouth area have for long been worried about the shortage of hospital beds. Two of them—the chairman and the vice-chairman of the medical staff committee of the Bournemouth and East Dorset Group Pathology Service attached to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Bournemouth —recently wrote a letter to the local Press in which they stated:
While patients in hospitals are receiving adequate care there is no doubt that too many patients wait too long to get into hospital because of an acute shortage of beds.
These are responsible people who write such things. They are not given to hyperbole. They weigh their words with care and speak with deep anxiety.
The consultant representative on the East Dorset district management team, Dr. Christian Loehry, has played a leading part in drawing attention to the seriousness of the shortage. He has given me details of waiting time for in-patient treatment that fully justify all the expressions of anxiety and concern. The records have also been shown to the community health council, which I understand now fully supports the views of consultants that early and effective action is most necessary. I see that in a recent statement in the Evening Echo it recommended that
every effort be made to co-ordinate efforts to effect a long-ovedue improvement in the situation regarding emergency admissions.
The figures that I have seen indicate that in the first week of February 1978 the aggregate number on waiting lists for in-patient treatment in the East Dorset district was just under 5,000. In some specialties—notably general surgery, ENT and orthopaedic—the numbers were especially high.
I know that orthopaedic waiting lists have been eased slightly by the opening of the Christchurch facility. That is extremely welcome, but the situation is still very serious, especially for those who are waiting for hip operations. That information comes to me not only from my constituency but from the two constituencies on either side of mine. It bears out the difficulties and personal

problems that are being experienced in the whole of the region—I have an interest to declare because tomorrow morning I have to go to an orthopaedic surgeon to have my hip checked. I hope that something will be done in that regard. It is a serious matter which for far too long has been attended by waiting lists which are totally indefensible.
There is another matter which should be discussed. When speaking of the Bournemouth area we are speaking of a holiday resort. There is a substantial influx during the holiday months which, at its peak, doubles the population. This causes additional problems for the existing services and no special regard seems to be paid to them. It places extra demands on consultants and doctors and obviously puts new pressures on the beds that are available.
In this area there is also a marked shortage of assessment beds for geriatric cases. Not surprisingly, Bournemouth has a large number of elderly people. We welcome them. Many of them come to Bournemouth to retire and to spend the remaining years of their lives in this attractive area. But this means that they have special requirements which are not being met adequately. Because of the many elderly people in the area, the need for more geriatric beds is urgent. This applies not only to Bournemouth but also to Poole.
In answer to a case with which I have been dealing, the district administrator at the hospital wrote to me and said:
Facilities for psychogeriatric patients are grossly inadequate in this district
—that is the East Dorset health care district. He explained that because of this very difficult decisions on priorities had to be reached.
It is appalling that that should be so. It is appalling that people should have to take decisions of that kind. Of course as I know the Minister understands, it is far more serious for the patients themselves.
It is clear that there is widespread concern amongst informed and responsible people about the inadequate number of beds in the Bournemouth area and about the difficulties experienced in admitting patients through the emergency bed service.
For these reasons I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East feel fully justified in raising the subject in Parliament and in pressing the Minister to authorise early action to ease the intolerable situation. Our constituents want action.
We welcome that in August 1982 a start is to be made on phase 1 of the new 900-bed district general hospital. When phase 1 is completed—and that is planned to be in August 1985—the hospital will provide 281 beds. The net increase in beds, however, depends upon what else is done in the meantime and what else is done when phase 1 is completed. For example, if it is planned to close the Royal National Chest Hospital, some beds will be taken away and the net position will not be as good. We must be careful to ensure that by the end of this exercise we are better off than before.
My anxieties in this regard are aroused by the fact that we are not to get a complete hospital in 1985. We are to get phase 1 of a complete hospital. Phase 1 is, in fact, a unit package, with many of the essential specialties omitted from it. I am not disappointed that we are getting phase 1; believe me, it is far better than nothing at all. But what would be better still would be a complete hospital, with all the facilities, all the specialties and all the services provided there.
When is that to happen? When is phase 2 to begin, to complete the hospital that has been planned and talked about for such a long time? When is phase 2 to start? Will the Minister assure me this evening that there will be no gap between the completion of phase 1 and the start of phase 2?
Meanwhile, it is most urgent that we press ahead with the building of a new 30-bed ward at Boscombe Hospital. This has also been under discussion for years, but for some reason no decision has been taken until just recently. For some reason, the Wessex regional health authority seems to have been sitting on this proposition. I have seen letters from the authority to consultants in my constituency which left me speechless, since they seem to be unaware of the urgency of the situation. Now, at last, it seems that it will go ahead, but exactly when I am not absolutely sure.
I want to know exactly when this new 30-bed ward is to be built. I want to know when it is to be started and when it is to be completed. If the Wessex regional health authority does not understand the urgency of the situation, it should give itself a holiday from its paper work and come to Bournemouth to ascertain the facts on the spot.
I want to make two other points. The first is related to this, although not directly concerned with the in-patient aspect. I refer to the out-patient problem. There is an acute waiting time for new out-patient appointments with consultants. In some cases this is grotesquely long. In neurology, it is as much as 35 weeks. There seems to be a grave shortage of neurologists. I do not know what steps are being taken to try to overcome it. I do not suppose that it is peculiar to the area I represent, but this seems to me to be a problem which deserves close attention. A period as long as 35 weeks must be wrong. In surgery, the period is anything from 10 to 31 weeks. In orthopaedics, it is anything from 10 to 29 weeks. In ENT it is 21 weeks, and in urology, 20 weeks.
It is wrong that we should have to contemplate figures of this order of magnitude. I am certain that the Minister would like to see them shortened. We would all wish to see them shortened. What worries me is that they have been going on like this for far too many years. I had a letter the other day from a leading doctor in my own constituency who has said that over the last seven or eight years, far from getting better the situation has been getting worse. No wonder doctors are worried and frustrated.
Finally, I should like to make one general point. It is that by comparison with other areas, Dorset is seriously under-funded. Will the Minister please undertake to look at this, and will he tonight give firm answers to the two questions that I have put to him?

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. David Atkinson: I am most grateful to you, Mr.


Deputy Speaker, for calling me in order to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), and to say how much I share the concern which he has expressed on behalf of all the people of Bournemouth about the lack of hospital beds and health facilities generally, which cover not only our two constituencies but your own as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a situation which has existed for a number of years, and it is likely to continue for at least seven more years until the first phase of the Castle Lane Hospital becomes available.
I am sure that the whole House will wish my right hon. Friend well on the inspection which he is to experience tomorrow with regard to his hip. We wish him every success. I should also like to say how right my right hon. Friend was to stress the enormous pressure which exists on hospital beds and health facilities generally with the Bournemouth area. During the summer season the population of that conurbation is swollen by at least 100 per cent. by people who fill the 600 hotels and the many more small boarding and guest houses which exist in the area.
It is not surprising that local people think that visitors are given preference when it comes to filling hospital beds or taking advantage of the health facilities which are available. But the simple reason is that at the height of the holiday season those facilities and beds are not enough to go round. Perhaps one aspect which is not always appreciated is that because of the high concentration of population along a very narrow coastal strip, the distance which an ambulance in an emergency has to travel from one end of that area to the other—perhaps to Poole Hospital—is twice the distance which an ambulance would have to travel in an inland town in order to go from the outer perimeter to the facilities which would normally be expected to exist in the centre of that town. This extra long distance in Bournemouth could put life at risk.
I should like to illustrate what I am saying with an example in relation to a member of my own family. Regrettably, a few weeks ago my wife dropped our one-year-old son. She tripped and fell and dropped him on the concrete path outside our house. As a result he was

concussed. Naturally, she took him straight to our doctor, who immediately suggested that she should take him to the local Boscombe Hospital where there was an accident unit. However, on ringing up Boscombe Hospital the doctor was told that it closed in half an hour. The time was 3.30 p.m. and he was told that it would be open the following morning. The doctor was advised that my wife should take my son, who was still concussed, the 10 miles through the very busy Bournemouth shopping area—choc-a-bloc with tourists—to Poole Hospital, where proper treatment could be given and where X-ray facilities were available. My wife had to undergo that experience. It took at least half an hour. Fortunately, it was not a matter of life and death. Fortunately, my son was all right.
I mention that to support my right hon. Friend in his demand for more beds and better health facilities, not just in seven years time, but now, in order to serve the Bournemouth-Poole-Christchurch conurbation.
I hope the Minister will appreciate as a result of the Resource Allocation Working Party formula, the Dorset area health authority is experiencing a shortfall of £2 million, simply because of the bias in the allocation of resources away from expanding areas such as Dorset in favour of the inner urban areas which, as we all know, have had declining populations in recent years. I also ask the Minister to appreciate that at present 25 per cent. of the population in Bournemouth is over the age of 65. That figure is likely to rise to 30 per cent.-plus within the next five years. Quite clearly there will be further strain on existing hospital beds and existing health facilities. I urge the Minister to appreciate the fact that we are experiencing a crying need for more beds and better facilities and that we are short of about £2 million that we could desperately do with at present, as a result of allocation of resources to our area.

10.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I should like to begin my reply to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) by congratulating him both on securing this opportunity


to bring this matter before the House and on his presentation of the argument. He has spoken of a matter which is quite properly one of considerable concern to his constituents. He has not dramatised it or exaggerated it in any way. I can assure him that it is also of concern to the Wessex Regional Health Authority and the Dorset Area Health Authority, which are responsible for the provision of health services in Bournemouth.
It is not part of my brief this evening to dismiss or deny the right hon. Gentleman's basic argument. Rather, I recognise, as do the health authorities concerned, that the provision of further hospital beds in Bournemouth and other parts of the East Dorset Health District, of which Bournemouth is a part, is a significant and important need. In that connection the right hon. Gentleman mentioned reports of deaths while waiting. I shall examine any specific cases which he can let me have because this is something that we must try to avoid at all costs.
In the time available to me. I shall tell the House something of the efforts that have already been made to attempt to tackle the problems of which the right hon. Gentleman, and his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) have spoken, and of the major plans which exist to secure a more permanent solution in East Dorset generally and, more specifically, in Bournemouth.
I suppose that somewhere in the country must exist a "typical" health district with an "average" population provided with facilities which at least broadly equate to national norms and recommendations. Whether or not this district does exist is a matter for conjecture, but it most certainly does not exist in the form of East Dorset. It is a most significant fact for the district's health services that it has a local age structure which is 50 per cent. above the national average in respect of the over-65s and 100 per cent. above the national average for the over-75s. It is well known that whilst all age groups make use of the Health Service the needs of the over-65s and even more so the over-75s are disproportionately great.
In this connection I draw the House's attention to our discussion document published yesterday on the elderly, entitled "A Happier Old Age". This states that the cost to the health and personal social services of a person over 75 is seven times that of the average adult.
The effect of this in East Dorset is enhanced by the fact that many of its elderly residents are not indigenous to the district but have moved there after retirement and so often have no family living locally to offer support at times of ill health. Thus, the need for both hospital and community health services in East Dorset is noticeably greater than would be implied by a superficial "head count" not refined by the special factors which apply in this case. There is also the effect of the influx of holidaymakers.
There can be no doubt that the hos. pital services available to the people of East Dorset are hard pressed, and this is by no means confined to one particular branch of the service. There is a shortage of beds which applies to geriatrics, services for the elderly severely mentally infirm, services for the mentally handicapped and to certain acute specialties. To add to the problem, many of the existing beds are in old hospitals, some of which are not best located to meet the district's needs.
I shall look first at some of the problems of the acute specialties. In this context it is important to remember that the hospital needs of the elderly are not confined to the services provided by the departments of geriatric medicine. The elderly are major consumers of the services of the acute specialties. Bournemouth's heavy concentration of elderly residents allied to deficiencies in provision of geriatric services and of services for the elderly severely mentally infirm has resulted in substantial "bed-blocking" in the acute specialties and this is a major contributory factor to the district's long waiting lists for various forms of surgery.
At the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe, this has resulted in the acute, specialties having a longer average length of patient stay when the regional average which, in the absence of additional bed provision, has been coped with only by the achievement of high occupancy rates. —around 94 per cent. for some specialties.


which is very high, and very low turn-round times—that is, the time between patient A's discharge and patient B's admission to the vacated bed. Both these latter are clear identifications of a hospital working under pressure.
Other non-acute specialties also face problems. In addition to those specialties —for example, geriatrics, where the problem is simply a shortage of beds—there are those where the problem is the location of the beds. As a further example, the inpatient service provision for East Dorset's mentally ill patients, while numerically adequate, is for the most part in hospitals in the west of the county. The unsatisfactory nature of this arrangement will be obvious.
A permanent solution to problems of the scale facing East Dorset can be secured only through an investment in major capital building, and I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is precisely what the health authorities concerned intend to do. Indeed, receipt in my Department of notice of this debate coincided to within two days with receipt from the Wessex Regional Health Authority of a stage 1 submission containing the proposals for the building of a major district general hospital in Bournemouth on the Castle Lane site. The authority proposes to build in three phases a full district general hospital with an eventual total size of 900 beds. It is hoped that a start on site for phase 1 will be made in 1982 and that the commissioning of the phase will be completed at the end of 1985.
The authority envisages a first phase cost of nearly £10 million. It is proposed that the first phase of the development should provide 224 general acute beds, 49 geriatric assessment beds, and intensive therapy and coronary care units each of eight beds. As well as in-patient accommodation, there are proposals to provide new operating theatres and X-ray rooms and rehabilitation, pathology and pharmacy departments. A further important feature of the first phase will be a new accident and emergency department. All in all, this will be a very significant improvement to the hospital facilities of East Dorset. It would be wrong of me to create the impression that the figures that I have quoted in relation to the

facilities to be provided in the new hospital will represent net gains in hospital provision. They will not. Much of the facilities provided in the new hospital will replace existing services in other hospitals. However, the overall effect of phase 1 of the Castle Lane project, as it is now proposed, will be to increase the acute beds in the district by 32 and the geriatric beds by 49, thus enabling an extra 3,000 in-patients to be treated each year.

Sir J. Eden: I wish to underline the point that that addition, which is small but welcome, will not take place before 1985.

Mr. Deakins: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The addition falls within phase 1 and so will not be finished until 1985. It might be possible, if the site work goes well and there are no building troubles, to bring that date forward. But hospital building, even within the nucleus concept—which is relatively simple and straightforward, and which we are trying to sell overseas with some success—is nevertheless, a complex operation. I cannot offer any hope that the date will be brought forward substantially. However, I hope that the date will be reached. The difficulty with some other hospitals is that the date slips, and that would not be in the interest of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents.
The first phase will be able to exist as an independent hospital with support from the existing Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe, where all out-patient services will continue to be provided with the necessary support services. It will not be until completion of the second phase, which inevitably must be some way into the future, that the new Castle Lane hospital will be able to replace completely the services presently provided from the Royal Victoria Hospital.
I have taken careful note of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the start on phase 2, but I cannot give any commitment, certainly not tonight. The start will obviously depend on the availability of resources, and I shall have more to say on that subject in a moment. I know that both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend are anxious to see in this connection further public expenditure, and I am pleased because the National Health Service could certainly do with a great deal more of it. I hope that we shall be


able to count on the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend in pressing our case both within Parliament and in the country, because there are instances, as in East Dorset, where there is a genuine need for more money. One can try to run a more efficient service, but, as the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member have pointed out fairly, basically capital is needed in order to provide the extra essential beds.
Given that I have accepted the view of the health authorities concerned that major development of services in Bournemouth is a priority it becomes fair to ask such questions as the following. First, why must we wait until the end of 1985 —over seven years—to see the completion of phase 1 of the Castle Lane project? Why will a start on site not be made until 1982? And why cannot the Department "nod through" the regional health authority's submission and so speed things up? These are all fair and understandable questions but, equally, I think there are good answers.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does the Minister agree with the point that I tried to make, which was that with present resources expanding, areas such as Dorset are being unfairly treated in the distribution in favour of the inner cities?

Mr. Deakins: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment I shall come to his point. I shall say something about RAWP and the effect on Dorset.
In dealing with the questions that I have posed it is worth pointing out that a capital development of the scale proposed at Castle Lane is by any standards a major investment, and one which will dominate the pattern of health service provision in Bournemouth for many years to come. We are building for the next century. That makes it all the more important to ensure as far as is possible that what we build in Bournemouth is right and that we obtain good value from our heavy investment. That said, I should mention that attempts will be made to keep the development's design time to a minimum. This will be done by the health authorities making use as much as possible of the Department's standard hospital design work embodied in the nucleus hospital concept, which has been mentioned in the House on previous occasions.
So, if we must wait some years yet for the permanent solution, what is being done in the meantime? I have, after all. acknowledged that here we are discussing a real and immediate problem. Again, I am pleased to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the health authorities have grasped the nettle and that action is being taken. I can give several examples of small or medium-size schemes which are in hand within the East. Dorset Health District which should contribute to a solution of some of the district's problems.
A third geriatric assessment ward of 28 beds is currently under construction at Christchurch Hospital and is due for completion in 1978–79. In the same year a start is planned on a new 28-bed geriatric ward at Alderney Hospital, which will enable two existing wards to be vacated and converted to provide temporary day hospital facilities. A development of the St. Mary's Hospital site at Poole, planned to start in 1980–81 will provide a permanent 30-place geriatric day hospital and 30 geriatric beds on a temporary basis. During the past three years a unit of 32 assessment beds for the elderly severely mentally infirm and a 30-place day hospital has been developed at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe, backed up by a community nursing service.
For this same category of patient there is planned to start in 1980–81 a 30-place day hospital together with 12 assessment beds at St. Mary's Hospital, Poole. The same hospital will also see the building. starting in 1980–81, of a 90-bed /160-day place mental illness unit. In addition, there has been good co-operation between Dorset area health authority and the Dorset county council on the use of joint finance which will benefit both health and social services. Finally, on the acute services side the regional health authority is proceeding with the planning of a 30-bed surgical ward at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe, which should offer the prospect of an improved service in the interim.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West asked about the timing. I shall consult the regional health authority on this matter and write to him giving as much information as is possible at this stage about the proposed starting date. My information at the


moment is that the planning is being proceeded with. He would obviously like to know, as I would, how long it is likely to take. I undertake to let him know.

Sir J. Eden: I appreciate that assurance from the Minister. Will he take note that the regional health authority, for some reason, seems to have been sitting on this matter? It does not seem to have recognised the urgency of it. Will he do his best to put a bomb under its backside?

Mr. Deakins: I am sure that on reading the report of the debate tonight, if nothing else, and receiving a letter from me or my officials, the authority will appreciate the urgency of getting through the planning procedure and on to the starting date.
All that I have said so far is strong evidence that there is no complacency on the part of either of the health authorities involved. On the contrary, the problems are recognised and are being tackled.
I think that in acknowledging East Dorset's problems I may have given an impression that it has in the past been a district unduly starved of capital funds for new building. Indeed, it is true that the second report of the Resource Allocation Working Party shows that the Wessex region as a whole falls short of its capital stock assessed target and can therefore expect to receive above average levels of capital investment over the next few years. However, it would be wrong to overstate the case. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that one has only to look at the Poole General Hospital—opened in the 1960s and now with nearly 600 beds—to see what has been achieved in East Dorset.
Finally, we have spoken a lot about beds and buildings. There is no point in having ample beds in new buildings if we do not have the money to run them. This Government, despite the country's economic problems, have maintained and, as far as possible, improved the level of finance available to the NHS. In addition—we have been criticised for this—we have been concerned to see that the overall "cake" is shared fairly. Thus,

our object in adopting the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Working Party and adopting its proposed revenue allocation methods has been to move as quickly as possible towards a position where a region's or an area's revenue allocation is determined by its population's health care needs rather than by some historical factor. The working party's calculation showed that in this respect Wessex as a region was "below target" and similarly within the region that Dorset was a "below target" area.
However, application of the working party's principles has meant that both the Wessex region and the Dorset area have moved, and continue to move, closer to their targets. Thus, before 1978–79 the Wessex region was about 6 per cent. below target, but the 1978–79 allocation—including the additional funds for the NHS announced in the Budget—reduces this deficit to 4·2 per cent. This position is virtually mirrored by the Dorset area. where the respective figures are 6·4 per cent. and 4·2 per cent. below target. Therefore, although both region and area have still more ground to make up, their relative positions have improved.
I assure the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that there is no suggestion whatsoever of moving money to the inner city areas. I represent what is almost an inner city area in North-East London, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the move is very much the other way. Indeed, there are many political difficulties as a result.
The intention is clear. I do not think that anyone should be under any misapprehension about our aims regarding the redistribution of resources, both capital and revenue, between and within regions.
I hope that what I have said will serve to reassure the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and their constituents that we are moving as fast as possible to deal with the very real problems which I acknowledge do exist in Bournemouth.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: As there are a few minutes left, perhaps I may mention two matters. I do not want to


intrude in what is very much a Bournemouth matter. However, I could use much of what 1 have heard in a similar debate in relation to my constituency. Indeed, some of the Minister's comments apply to my constituency as well.
Once the Minister has set off the bomb for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) asked, which I hope he will set off speedily, will he prepare another for delivery in the North-West to ensure that the nucleus hospital in my constituency

follows closely upon that in Bournemouth?
Secondly, I should like to echo the good wishes expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. I join in the hope that his visit to hospital will produce great benefit.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.